<Pic credit: Alvinology.com>

Celebrity chef Gordon Ramsay has tried Tian Tian's Hainanese chicken rice and found the chilli 'too spicy'. The Scottish celebrity chef was at the stall earlier today (July 5) to learn how to make the local dish. 

The Straits Times reported that crowds gathered at the famous stall from as early as 8am today morning to await the arrival of Ramsay. Excited members of the public itching to get a good shot of the chef shoved each other to get closer to the chef, who shook hands with some of them.

Ramsay, known for his fiery temper and cooking shows such as Hell's Kitchen, The F Word and Ramsay's Kitchen Nightmares, is in town for the Singtel Hawker Heroes challenge on Sunday.

The telco and some food bloggers here had issued him a challenge to cook with the best hawkers in Singapore. The top three competitors were determined by a poll.

On Sunday at Newton food centre, he will have a cook-off with Tian Tian, Jumbo Seafood and 328 Katong Laksa; making chicken rice, chilli crab and laksa. People can judge which versions are better.

Madam Foo said in Mandarin: "I didn't know who he was before he came here. I had heard he was very fierce, but he was very nice to us." After giving a Tian Tian staff member a high five and asking for votes, he left the bustling hawker centre with his plate of chicken rice.

The chef has also appeared in a recent Youtube video of him learning to make rendang in Malaysia.

Ramsay, who has been awarded 15 Michelin stars and has hosted multiple television programmes about cooking and food, was shown who's boss by a Malaysian auntie when he learnt to cook rendang.

In the video found on YouTube, Gordon Ramsay was at a restaurant in Malaysia run by an auntie "with a temper as fiery as a barbeque." Ramsay asks Aini, the owner of the restaurant, to show him how to make rendang. 

Aini proceeds to boss him around, prompting Ramsay to say in a voiceover, "I'm not used to getting shoved around like this. I'm beginning to wish I was still sitting outside." Later, when Ramsay tries to figure out how much of a particular ingredient is used, Aini says, "Oh don't be shy Gordon, just pour the damn thing out."

Recently, it was reported that Gordon Ramsay will take on three of Singapore’s top hawkers in a cook-off, putting the spotlight on Singapore’s hawker heritage. The Michelin-starred chef was issued an invitation to the food challenge, Hawker Heroes, by local telco SingTel.

“The Straits Times (ST) has published a story about a PR from India, Savita Agarwal, sending her child to a Singapore local school (‘She likes the way English is taught here’, 22 Jun 2013). Apparently, the rest of her compatriots prefer to send their children to international schools, presumably the Global Indian International School (GIIS).”http://www.tremeritus.com/2013/07/03/st-report-reveals-indian-fts-prefer-to-send-their-kids-to-international-instead-of-local-schools/

I am local Indian and I have to say I absolutely detest the propaganda conducted by these Indian FTs about their so called great International Indian school. The real truth is these Indian FTs can’t “make it” in our local schools. They feel their children are stressed and put at a disadvantage in local schools and so, a higher possibility of ending up with failing grades. I have known a number of these people and their kids who don’t do well in school. That’s the impression they have of our local schools.

I know how these Indian FTs are since I have lived in India and worked with some of them. They will hide their incompetency by conducting propaganda all the time – by making themselves and their own kinds or anything related to India as great. Stop this nonsense!

If you can’t make it in our local schools, don’t say your international school is great. Yes, I agree though local school system is lousy compared to what you may find in some Western countries, but you don’t have to put it down. And your own Indian International School isn’t that great either. I have relatives who are Singaporean Indians and who have emigrated to the West. Their kids study in the local Western schools which by far, are superior to any Singapore or Indian International schools.

If you want a good school which trains children in analytical thoughts, then go to the West. Why still remain here in Singapore?

These students only get to study with their Indian nationals – no local students, no Singaporean Indians, no Singaporean Chinese, no Singaporean Malays. That’s what these Indian FTs “want”. THIS IS HOW SCHOOLS IN INDIA OPERATE, ESPECIALLY THOSE THAT ARE PRIVATELY FUNDED OVER THE GOVERNMENT ONES. They should just go back to India and enroll in their own “International Schools” there.

There are Chinese SAP schools as well as Islamic schools. These are exceptional schools in Singapore. But the govt has control over what kind of curriculum is taught there. They have various social integration programs and social studies and humanity subjects. Do the international schools have these?

International schools will prevent FTs’ kids from integrating with our locals. They are living in HDB flats meant for
Singaporeans. They are traveling in public transport meant for Singaporeans. They even have taken jobs meant for Singaporeans. But they will never want to integrate.

I propose that if any FTs send their kids to international schools, the whole family is deemed to be not interested to integrate with Singaporeans and here only for economic reasons. DO NOT GIVE THEM PR OR CITIZENSHIP! Just work passes will do. When time is up or they have no more jobs, then kick them out of Singapore immediately!

Same goes for FTs who reject PR for their kids, especially their sons, and only want them to be on student pass. Clearly, they are not interested to let their sons serve NS and only want them to study in Singapore. After they finish their studies, please kick them out of Singapore! BLACKLIST THEM AND DO NOT LET THEM COME BACK TO SINGAPORE TO WORK AS FUTURE FTs!

And please also stop wasting public land that can be used to build housing and other commercial spaces for the economic benefits to we local citizens!

ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!

A fed-up Singaporean Indian

Since last Friday (28 Jun), thousands of dead fish have been found floating at sea and on the shore in Lim Chu Kang as well as the Sungei Buloh Wetland Reserve (SBWR).

News of the dead fish was first reported by a blogger calledsgbeachbum last Saturday (29 Jun).sgbeachbum is a man called Andy, 43, who volunteers at SBWR. According to Andy [Link],

Visited SBWR this afternoon and was surprised to see many many floaters – fish – all dead and stinky. They seemed likely to be milkfish and mullet. These are commonly farmed at the off-shore fish farms located off Lim Chu Kang and the SBWR.

I had a friend from Denmark visiting Singapore whom I had dragged along to visit SBWR and he was (with jaw dropping silence) shocked to see the condition of the Lim Chu Kang mangrove and beach and the items left behind by squatting fisherfolk temporarily resident along the beach.

The whole beach was strewn with dead fish (and not forgetting copious amounts of styrofoam and other rubbish).

Meanwhile at SBWR … the reserve was being pervaded by the certain pungent smell of decomposing fish. Lots of them.

Apparently, the dead fish started appearing on Friday and SBWR staff had cleared what they could reach but there was just too many dead fish coming in from the coast with each incoming tide.

Many dead fish got stuck on the rocky bunds and also on trees once the tide receded. The hot afternoon air wafted the rotting stench easily and it was impossible to escape the pungent smell (even with an N95 mask which obviously was not designed to stop smells).

The Lim Chu Kang jetty has two dumpsters, one for biological waste and another for general waste. It is obvious that the fish farm(s) responsible for the dumping are not using these waste collection containers.

News of the dead fish quickly spread and the mass media reported it on Wednesday (3 Jul).

The mass media quoted a spokesman for the Agri-Food & Veterinary Authority of Singapore (AVA) as saying that the recent “hot and dry weather with little or no rainfall” had resulted in “low levels of dissolved oxygen in the waters near the coastal fish farms at Lim Chu Kang”.

The AVA spokesman said that nearly 90 tonnes or 90,000 kg of fish from four farms in the area had died.

Although the spokesman did not mention the haze as a factor in the fish’s death, many netizens are convinced that the thick haze which enveloped Singapore recently had something to do with it.

On the AsiaOne forum, leedavid said:

“walan, cannot follow time event milestones? Last few days raining where got dry spell? So the fishes died before the rain came obviously. And the fishes probably started dropping dead when PSI hit 400 and their corpses accumulate gradually to current numbers to worth reporting it lah. Fishes don’t die all at once. The weaker smaller ones succumb first then the older and finally even the fit ones also fall.”

kooldog59 agreed:

“I don’t think it is just the dry spell, but the haze must have got to them as well…”

kyotykcaj opined:

“If you ask me, the recent haze has to play a part in the death of the fishes. Coupled with a lack of rainfall or dry conditions, any creatures in the pond would be dead or suffocated.

The haze particles had reached a very hazardous level of 401 at some point, so these particulates had to settle on the ground at some point, so would that tantamount to poisoning the water?

N E A = Not Everytime Accurate”

Over on the Yahoo! Singapore forum, netizens were equally skeptical.

Venga said:

“another cover up? Everyone who has been to the farm knows that all farm have a sprinkler on their ponds. this is to create oxygen. so then why does the fish die? Its clearly due to the haze. common guys, wake up. Singapore did not go thru a dry weather. last year was even hotter and dryer, but no fish died??? just becos a minister says that the water is good, you are covering this up. Be upfront to us. anyway i saw the dead fish 2 weeks back on a Wednesday. all this was during the haze period….”

Chok-Dee commented:

“AVA sure or not? Dead because of lack of oxygen in the water and high temperature!
Not contamination or something else? Better check properly ok?”

Syirah was doubtful:

“u just cannot trust the government bodies nowadays… lack of oxygen? are you kidding me?”

TheRighteousHand forcefully said:

“I think AVA should not just jump to conclusion that it is because the waters there lacked sufficient oxygen. Obviously all living things need oxygen to survive but we should not jump to the conclusion that it was THE reason the fishes died. AVA should take water samples to determine and study all the components present (and not just the oxygen) because there may be toxic elements that were responsible for the dead fishes other than lack of oxygen. Also, the simple explanation that the lack of oxygen in the waters was the result of the dry spell is actually quite ridiculous. Firstly, there have been dry spells and seasons over the years and over the decades but such thing as mass death of fishes did not happen. Secondly, a lot of people keep fishes at home in small tanks which do not have air tubes (for replenishing oxygen content in the tank waters) but yet the fishes do not die. This is a fact. But according to AVA’s explanation the fishes should die because there is no “churning effect” from rain to dissolve “atmospheric oxygen”. This is all nonsense. AVA should go do its job. I suggest they send an investigative team to the waters at Lim Chu Kang and do a more indepth study before jumping to summary conclusion using meaningless scientific jargon.”

According to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) [Link]:

“Fine particles,” such as those found in smoke and haze, are 2.5 micrometers in diameter and smaller. These particles (i.e. PM2.5 particulates) can be directly emitted from sources such as forest fires, or they can form when gases emitted from power plants, industries and automobiles react in the air.

EPA says further [Link]:

Health studies have shown a significant association between exposure to fine particles and premature mortality. Other important effects include aggravation of respiratory and cardiovascular disease (as indicated by increased hospital admissions, emergency room visits, absences from school or work, and restricted activity days), lung disease, decreased lung function, asthma attacks, and certain cardiovascular problems such as heart attacks and cardiac arrhythmia. Individuals particularly sensitive to fine particle exposure include older adults, people with heart and lung disease, and children.

In other words, if haze is harmful to human beings to the point of causing premature death, it must be harmful to other living things such as fish.

The 90 tonnes of dead fish recalls a similar experience the Chinese had in April this year [Link]. In that case, hundreds of dead fish consisting of about 150 kg of crucian carp and 100 kg of bigger carp washed up along the shorelines of a man-made river in Shanghai’s Songjiang district.

Gao Yunchu, director of Songjiang water authority, said small fish with relatively weaker body defence systems were found dead first and the bodies of bigger fish such as carp were discovered later. Some of the fish was sent to the Shanghai Municipal Agricultural Commission to investigate the cause of death.

The Songjiang water authority ruled out the possibility of pollution after water quality tests showed the levels of dissolved oxygen, ammonia nitrogen and the acid/alkali reading in the water was within the normal range. It further assured the public by saying the river is surrounded by old-fashioned residences and shops and no chemical plants. It also promised to closely monitor water quality once a month.

In Shanghai’s case, hundreds of fish weighing 250kg died.

In Singapore’s case, thousands of fish weighing 90,000kg (360 times as many fish) died. In fact, so many fish died the sight was shocking and the stench was unbearable, according to blogger sgbeachbum a.k.a. Andy.

As Andy said, “Apparently, the dead fish started appearing on Friday and SBWR staff had cleared what they could reach but there was just too many dead fish coming in from the coast with each incoming tide.” This means SBWR staff, try as they might, could not clear the dead fish since there were so many and they just kept coming.

There were so many dead fish some even ended up on trees.

What is worrying is that, if not for a public-spirited blogger, Singaporeans might have been totally in the dark about the incident.

Is AVA right to conveniently attribute the death of so many fish to “hot and dry weather with little or no rainfall”?

To assure the Chinese public, the Shanghai authorities took the trouble of testing the water and sending the fish for a post mortem. Since the ministers of the Little Red Dot are paid more than the ministers of the Middle Kingdom, should we not expect at least as much if not more from our “talented” ministers?

TR Emeritus

*Article first appeared on www.TREmeritus.com

The permanent secretary for the Ministry of Communications, Aubeck Kam, said that the MDA is working with the 10 news sites recently made to require a license to improve the wording of the new regulations.

However, the key purpose of the regulations are not going to be changed, he said. 

Yesterday, Mr Kam had attended a forum about the new regulations and had been asked over 20 questions in 2 hours at the event organised by the Singapore Computer Society. 

He clarified that some of the key areas that are being reviewed include the responsibility of the news sites over third-party content on their websites. However, he declined to give further details on whether other sections of the regulation would be changed. 

It is expected that an agreement will be drafted and prepared for signing by the licensees in about a month. The aim is to make it "as clear as possible what the obligation is.”

Some of the other concerns raised by various online parties include the 24-hour deadline for compliance to any takedown notice, but it seems that the only clarification given was that the time started when a formal take-down notice has been given.

Some of the big names who have raised concerns over the new regulations include the Asia Internet Coalition (AIC) with companies such as Facebook, Google, eBay, Yahoo! and SalesForce inside. The AIC Spokesman John Ure questioned Mr Kam as to whether the rules were really necessary as there are already existing laws to tackle restricted content such as racial hate and pornography. 

In response to these concerns, Mr Kam reiterated that content online should also “reflect the ethos and values of society”

While there are clearly some arguments to be made to support the new rules, such as those cited by Mr Kam, others feel that even with better definitions and a clearer picture of online news sites' obligations, the allowing of these regulations is still a precedent of curbing free speech. 

If the new regulations are passed and it is accepted that the targeted content is 'unsuitable' it will slowly become a norm and MDA could move the standards again when they next wanted. 

The threats of defamation lawsuits have worked so far to prevent the spread of false and accusatory remarks online, so why are the laws still needed? 

To argue that the rules are in place to protect the public is an insult to the education system and the people. It implies that the average consumer of online content does not know how to differentiate between truth, lies, hate speech and legitimate criticism. 

The internet fills a niche. Where there are gaps in traditional reporting, there will be someone there to fill them. The most effective way to chip away at the power of the online news sites is to report in a more balanced way.

This seems to be the observations culled from the comments by some bloggers following the epic Egyptian protest and the Hongkie protest this week. I think in terms of public gathering, Singaporeans are more comfortable showing up for a celebration like the Pink Dot Movement or the National Day Celebration.

It is not that protest on the street is not a part of our history or not in our DNA. There were big protests against the colonial govt, industrial strikes, and some quite violent in a way. The students camped in the Bukit Timah campus of Chinese High. These were memories of the past. 

The biggest protests in recent past other than the three in Hong Lim did not garner more than 20 people at most and in several cases less than 10. This is quite a phenomenon in our history. Maybe the law that defined 4 as illegal assembly may have conditioned the populace not to be seen in greater than 4 unless it is a govt approved protest.

How then could Sinkies get used to be running down the streets again in protest of whatever they want to believe and protest about? Maybe a little training, a few trial runs or a few practices to get them used to be in a street protest may be needed. Hong Lim is a good place for such training and we had three or so over the few months. The two protests against the 6.9 populations were surprisingly well attended in our context though dismal even to those of our neighbours. Really no fun huh?

And the last call to protest against the haze met with near total silence. Maybe it was the haze and the protesters were there but hidden by poor visibility. Come to think about it, an anti haze protest or something similar could be a good practice round. The Hongkies had a good trial run when they protested against the TianAnMen in what, 1989? I think this is a good idea to start with. Try to protest against something external, like the haze. The temperature would not be so high and people will not be too edgy about it. It may even be encouraged. Have a few runs to get the people to get used to what a protest is like. It can also be fun if grandpa and grandma and the children can come along, like a picnic.

However, not all protests are like a picnic. The latest Hongkie protest surprisingly was like a picnic though the motion was serious and causing the govt some jittery moments. They must have practiced it to an art by now, peaceful protest and both protesters and the govt are quite comfortable and knowing no force will be used against the protesters. Don’t try the Malaysian version 1.01.

The drawback about protesting on external issues is that it may not be attractive enough to draw in the crowd. There are issues too that will make such a protest unattractive. Perhaps the govt could contribute some free chicken rice and free transportation to educate the Sinkies on how to walk the streets confidently for a good cause or at least for the right thing. 

Sinkies are now like domesticated animals and have lost their instinct to act naturally, to learn to live off the land, to fight for food, to fight for their own survival and existence. An introduction course to learn how to protest may be good for the Sinkies and country as well. One day we may need this for our own good. It is also a tool that the Govt can apply to exert some pressure in a cause that the official line will not work. There are times when letting the people into the street to do the talking is necessary. 

Protesting is a forgotten survival skill in this sanitized and emotionless City when nothing matters anymore. People can get robbed of their life savings and would not dare utter a murmur. It is quite unfortunate really, to lose this survival skill. The discrimination against Sinkies in employment caught the Sinkies totally off guard and not knowing what to do next. Helplessness is the word. The ministers actually thought that the best thing was to plead with the transgressors or recalcitrants by having a chat over coffee, and hoping that things will happen. 

Did the thought of a street protest occur in their minds? Lim Boon Heng did one some years back by marching from the NTUC Conference hall to High Street, if I can remember. The Govt must take the lead if the Sinkies are to relearn how to protest once more. Forget about the picnics in Hong Lim, that is a walk in the park.

Chua Chin Leng AKA Redbean

*The writer blogs at mysingaporenews.blogspot.com

There is a growing number of elderly Singaporeans being abandoned by their families in nearby foreign countries.

Once confined to hospitals and old folks’ homes in Singapore, these cases have now apparently migrated to nearby countries.An 82-year-old man found hungry and wandering in Johor Baru has sparked the discovery of several cases of elderly Singaporeans abandoned by their families in neighbouring towns and cities.

The man was picked up by the Malaysian police and repatriated to a home for the destitute two months ago, reported The New Paper. He was one of a number of elderly Singaporeans who were abandoned overseas.

He said he was left there by a family member and had a son in Singapore, the paper added. While he could walk, he was very weak and in a wheelchair.

Informed sources said there had been several similar cases in Jakarta and Johor. One case was found in China. The number was, however, relatively small.

To the detriment of its image, such cases of parents abandoned in hospitals and old folks’ homes in Singapore had increased.

This has added to criticism that despite being one of the richest countries in the world, Singapore has failed to take care of its elderly.

It is a common sight to see older folks cleaning tables or toilets in Singapore. Others collect bottles or cardboards for sale.

In 1994, the government passed the Maintenance of Parents Action that allows Singaporeans who are 60 and above to claim maintenance from their children who are capable of supporting them but are not doing so.

Parents can sue their children for maintenance in the form of monthly allowances or a lump sum payment.

Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong once said his Government would study how best to use this Act to get children to help pay for their parents’ care.

Singapore, which has the biggest number of millionaires per capita, has a significant dilemma with its ageing population.

One reason is that it lacks a real financial safety net for the aged like other developed countries.

The retirement age here is 62, but people live to an average of 83. This means retirees have some 21 years to survive on their savings.

Surveys have shown most savings here last an average of nine years.

“Most Singaporeans cannot afford to retire,” said a social worker.

That’s one reason why many middle class Singaporeans are termed “the sandwiched generation” because they are financially caught between raising children and supporting their aged parents.

To avoid this, some Singaporeans avoid getting married or having children.

As rising health and living costs keep rising, the financial dilemma of the aged threatens social harmony.

“It’s not that the elderly do not want to retire, many simply cannot afford to,” said a letter writer.

He wrote: “These senior citizens are not working as cleaners because they are saving to buy a condominium or a luxury car; it is because they need to feed themselves and their families.”

This is the other face of prosperous Singapore.

Much blame is on globalisation, insufficient safety net or poor education when young – or all these factors – but it has made old age synonymous to poverty and hardship.

The rising financial hardship of many senior citizens is one of the causes why many foreigners shun taking up Singapore citizenship.

“They prefer to earn their money here and retire at home where it’s cheaper,” said a civil servant.

For the same reason, many Singaporeans are migrating to foreign countries which provide a better safety net, especially for the elderly.

Former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew once painted an exciting scenario of a fast-developing Singapore moving “into the upper half of the First World. We can do this in the next 10-20 years”.

Many Singaporeans who are 45 or older do not share his optimism.

They view growing old as not a good thing because some employers consider 45-year-olds as over the hill, preferring to replace them with younger, cheaper workers.

Making things worse is the large influx of foreign professionals who are ready to accept lower salaries.

The majority of aged workers are lowly skilled and make up the bulk of Singapore’s struggling class.

In recent years, their income has either stagnated or declined, while the rich got richer.

This affects their ability to save for retirement, despite the mandatory Central Provident Fund.

Only 27% of adult Singaporeans said that they had sufficient funds to retire, compared with 61% of Thais and 47% of Malaysians, according to an insurance company survey.

In a post-mortem of the 2006 election, leaders of the ruling People’s Action Party attributed its large 9% drop in popularity votes to disenchanted older votes.

But it is jobs that remain the bugbear for the seniors because many employers are reluctant to employ – or keep – people over 50.

A commentator said that government efforts to keep elderly people gainfully employed are failing, citing a friend who was retrenched from a foreign oil company.

“When he applied to a local one, he was told that at 55 he was too old. They were looking for someone below 48,” he added.

Citizens over 55 are given discounts for public transport and entertainment places (non-peak hours), far short of what the public wants.

These Singaporeans have spent a lifetime working hard to build Singapore up, whether as coolies or managers, and should be looked after during their sunset years.

Singapore is one of the most expensive places in Asia to retire in, observes a grandmother of two.

“The old should be enjoying their time, not working as cleaners.”

Seah Chiang Nee

Chiang Nee has been a journalist for 40 years. He is a true-blooded Singaporean, born, bred and says that he hopes to die in Singapore. He worked as a Reuters corespondent between 1960-70, based in Singapore but with various assignments in Southeast Asia, including a total of about 40 months in (then South) Vietnam between 1966-1970. In 1970, he left to work for Singapore Herald, first as Malaysia Bureau Chief and later as News Editor before it was forced to close after a run-in with the Singapore Government. He then left Singapore to work for The Asian, the world’s first regional weekly newspaper, based in Bangkok to cover Thailand and Indochina for two years between 1972-73. Other jobs: News Editor of Hong Kong Standard (1973-74),  Foreign Editor of Straits Times with reporting assignments to Asia, Europe, Africa, the Middle East and The United States (1974-82) and Editor of Singapore Monitor (1982-85). Since 1986, he has been a columnist for the Malaysia’s The Star newspaper. Article first appeared in his blog, http://www.littlespeck.com.

In an ironic twist of fate, a Shandong man who nearly killed a scooter rider in a hit-and-run accident later discovered he had injured his own father.

According to Shanghaiist, the accident happened last Sunday, and the son was a man surnamed Li.

He was driving a van in the early morning when he hit a man on a scooter. Fleeing the scene before checking on the man or calling for help, Li tried to hide evidence in an auto body repair shop.

However, police responded quickly and soon found the culprit. After some questioning, Li soon discovered the victim was his own father.

The police were gracious enough to let him return home to take care of his injured dad, and they also sympathetically chose not to tell Li's father his own flesh and blood was the one who had run him down and fled the scene.

Nevertheless, Li cannot escape the long arm of the law. He will still face charges for his traffic violation, and whether his father finds out is up to Li or through media reports.

This is like the class bully telling the school bully to stop harassing other kids, while he himself supports the town bully terrorizing and vandalizing the streets. Singapore, the most paranoid and largest arms purchaser in SE Asia, tells North Korea to cool it down on their nuke programme? Ha ha ha. 

Hasn't Sinkiepore been supporting the biggest terror nation in the world, the United States of Terrormerica, in their wars in lands of others?

K Shanmugam. Detests N Korea's nuke programme but supports Americuh's use of force and terror, including use of depleted and enriched uranium in munitions on others. Drug abuser ticking off the drug courier but supports the drug lord boss?

N. Korea faces heavy pressure at Asean forum

'Brutally frank' exchange on ending N-weapons programme: Shanmugam

North Korean Foreign Minister Pak Ui Chun, centre, is escorted by security guards as he leaves after a meeting at the AseanForeign Ministers' Meeting in Bandar Seri Begawan, Brunei on Monday, July 1, 2013. North Korea came under heavy pressure at the region's top security forum to end its nuclear weapons programme, with barbs traded on the floor, said Singapore's Foreign Minister K. Shanmugam. -- FILE PHOTO: AP

NORTH Korea came under heavy pressure at the region's top security forum to end its nuclear weapons programme, with barbs traded on the floor, said Singapore's Foreign Minister K. Shanmugam.

Describing the exchange yesterday as "very direct and brutally frank", he said later: "North Korea came under heavy pressure. The language that was used by some of the countries was language that's usually not heard in such a forum."

While some countries were more muted in their stance, others slammed the defiant communist state's actions as detrimental to peace. They also accused it of engaging in unlawful and illegal activities and said that steps to improve its nuclear capabilities will not be tolerated.

Singapore's position is there should be denuclearisation of the Korean peninsula. Any step taken should not raise tensions but promote peace, Mr Shanmugam said on the sidelines of the four-day ministers' meetings here, including the Asean Regional Forum on security.

This is hypocritical. Who is Singapore to tell N Korea that its nuclear programme should be abandoned, when we ourselves are the biggest spender of arms in the region?

N Korea was quick to rebut.
 

However, North Korean Foreign Minister Pak Ui Chun fired back in the discussions yesterday morning, calling the United States the "true provocateur" and saying it would retain its nuclear programme until Washington drops its "hostile" stance, reported Agence France-Presse.

It is a fact that US has been goading the world on N Korea. The US has sinister motives. It wants to create tension in the Asia-Pac region so that it could put its big ships and big guns here to counter China.

Sinkiepore, being a mouthpiece of the US, of course rants out loud and hard on the biiigg baaaad wolf that lies in the north of the Korean peninsula. Don't our ministers sound so hypocritical?

Barrie 

*The author blogs at wherebearsroamfree.blogspot.ch

Singapore is unlike many other countries in that it still uses caning as a form of legal punishment. Most people would argue, rightly, that such a practice is barbaric. Caning as a legal form of punishment ought to be abolished.

The primary reason why caning as a legal form of punishment ought to be abolished is that it is inhumane. Before we get into why it is inhumane, let us first review the basic facts of caning [1].

Caning is a form of judicial corporal punishment – designed primarily to deter crime. Caning in Singapore originated from British colonial law. In modern times, caning is administered for a wide range of crimes, ranging from the petty to the serious. You are eligible for caning if you a male aged between 16 and 50, though juveniles below the age of 16 can still be caned if the High Court so orders, and of course being a foreigner like Michael Fay does not exempt you.

Many thousands of men have been caned in Singapore, with the numbers rising from 602 in 1987 to 6404 in 2007. Up to 24 strokes may be ordered. The cane itself is rattan, 1.2m long and 1.3cm thick. During the caning, the person to be caned will be strapped to a large wooden A-frame trestle. Before the caning, the prisoner is medically examined to determine whether he is fit to be caned. The prisoner is not told in advance of when he will be caned, and the waiting is meant to add to the level of anxiety and fear being felt. The place of caning can be a room, or an open courtyard. The whole event is ceremonial, with uniformed officers in attendance. The caning officers themselves are specifically trained for their purpose. Finally, the prisoner is stripped and tied to the trestle, and using a cane soaked in water to make it supple (producing the effects of a lash), the caning officer whips the prisoner with maximum force.

The result is that, in the words of a Singapore Bar Association report, “When the rattan hits the bare buttocks, the skin disintegrates, leaving a white line and then a flow of blood.”; there is usually “… blood at the fourth stroke.”; “The skin at the point of contact is usually split open and, after three strokes, the buttocks will be covered in blood”. Of the prisoners, “Many will collapse”, “some pray, some beg for mercy, others scream” and “people shake and shake”. And of course, there is the pain, which has been described as “excruciating”, as “beyond description. If there is a word stronger than excruciating, then that should be the word to describe it”, and as so horrible that “[I] screamed like a mad animal”. The prisoner is given medical treatment, but such treatment is largely useless – “for weeks the prisoner cannot sit down”, “the blood just wet[s] [your] shorts” and after 10 strokes, you are “unable to walk without help from the warder”. Even while the wounds were healing, “Going to the toilet was the worst … you don’t dare to squat because you may tear open the wounds again”, you can “neither eat nor sleep properly” and of course, “the cane marks are indelible and these will be a source of humiliation to [the prisoners] for the rest of their lives“. Lee Kuan Yew himself has emphasized this point many times: caning is indeed intended to be humiliating. Note that while Malaysia also has caning as a punishment, it is much less severe due to the relative thinness of the rattan that they use. All in all, caning as a legal form of punishment in Singapore is extremely inhumane, and that in itself is a good reason to abolish it.

But caning as a form of legal punishment is undesirable also because it has been used as a tool of repression against the political opposition. No matter how much the government tries to whitewash the historical record, the facts cannot be changed. Caning was instituted as a mandatory punishment for vandalism, under the 1966 Vandalism Act, as a way of further weakening the Barisan Socialists (who were not, contrary to the PAP’s claims, violent communists out to overthrow the state).

Jothie Rajah’s recent book, Authoritarian Rule of Law, brilliantly shows that the perverted law was passed to “fix the opposition” (to borrow from Lee Hsien Loong’s limited vocabulary) [2]. Back in 1966, the Barisan Socialists, despite being absent from Parliament due to their boycott of it, and despite being weakened by “anti-Communist” measures (e.g. Operation Coldstore and the arrest of Barisan leaders), were still seen by the PAP as a serious threat to its power. Then in April 1966, the Barisan started their “Aid Vietnam” campaign protesting against the Vietnam War and against the government allowing US troops serving in Vietnam to have their rest and recreation leave here in Singapore. Because the PAP was severely curtailing opposition activity (e.g. by banning public rallies), much of the anti-war protest involved slogans and posters being painted or put up covertly in the middle of the night.

In response, the PAP presented the Punishment for Vandalism Bill to parliament, whose aim was to punish vandalism, which Lee Kuan Yew described as “a particularly vicious social misdemeanor, like taking a pot of paint and going to every bus stand and chalking up anti-American or anti-British or pro-Vietcong slogans”, though of course the real target (and here Lee Kuan Yew’s choice of examples is revealing) was the opposition. Mandatory caning was justified by Lee Kuan Yew on the grounds that the ideologically motivated vandal (i.e. members of the opposition) was quite ready to become a martyr and go to jail, or to pay a fine, “But if he knows he is going to get three of the best, I think he will lose a great deal of enthusiasm, because there is little glory attached to the rather humiliating experience of having to be caned.” Such caning would also be meted out to “anti-national elements [that] use children and other young persons to smear and mar public and private property”, and by this Lee Kuan Yew meant that the opposition leaders who organized the putting up of slogans would also be caned.

The Act was also used in the National Day period of 1967, with youths arrested for doing things like painting slogans in red paint in public spaces, in protest against “fake Merdeka” and PAP rule. When the controversial Employment Bill was being considered by Parliament in 1968, the Act was again used, such as when an unemployed young man was arrested trying to affix an anti-Employment Bill posters to a lamp-post in the early morning. There was also the case of Ang Chin Sang, a youth sentenced to three months imprisonment and three strokes of the cane just because he had thrown egg shells containing green paint at a National Day arch. All things considered, the Vandalism Act and caning was used as a brutal way of curbing the opposition’s activities. No real discernible public interest is being upheld, unless you consider the brutal whipping of kids and the disfigurement of their bodies as part of the public interest. Caning has been used to silence dissent, and it may well be used again, which makes it all the more important and pressing that it be abolished as a form of legal punishment.

In the face of all this evidence against the wisdom of having caning as a form of legal punishment, one might still maintain that it helps deter crime (e.g. manslaughter, armed robbery, rape). However, such a point of view is deeply misguided and misinformed, because the harshness of a punishment has little to no impact on the deterring of crime. We might first make a relatively inexpensive observation, based on the statistics I brought up in the 2^nd paragraph, on the frequency of caning – if indeed caning deters crime, then why on earth are we caning more people now (6404 people in 2007) than we did in the past (602 in 1987)? Plainly, caning is not a very effective deterrent.

The issue of whether the harshness of the punishment plays a significant role in deterring crime, can be better understood by considering the evidence on the efficacy of the death penalty as a deterrent, because if caning deters crime by being especially brutal and horrible, then surely so does the death penalty [3]. However, most leading criminologists (90% or more) do not believe that the death penalty deters crime (as compared to non-capital punishments like imprisonment). These experts are right – the murder rates in American states with the death penalty have consistently been higher than the murder rates in American states without the death penalty. The simple reason for the failure of the death penalty as a form of deterrence is that the threat of execution at some future date is not even likely to enter the minds and rational considerations of people who might A) be drunk, B) be gripped by fear or rage, C) be panicking while committing another crime (e.g. a robbery), D) be suffering from mental illness.

The same logic applies to caning – when people do try to commit crimes despite legal sanctions, it is simply because they are not so rational as to take these legal sanctions into consideration; and even when the criminals are rational, it is not so much the severity of the punishment, but the chances of being caught at all, that they worry about. In this regard, Singapore is lucky, because we are a small country with no place for criminals to hide – most criminals are easily caught. Singapore’s low crime rate is due mainly to this, and to our small borders, which mean we can easily stop the inflow of things like gun and drugs which aid homicide (in the case of guns) or which create incentives for criminal behaviour (in the case of drugs). All things considered, caning does not deter crime, and there truly is no reason to continue having it as a legal form of punishment.

When I was younger, I used to be in favour of caning, wrongly believing that it helped reduce crime. Yet the more I learnt about the issue, the more I realized that the evidence against having such a savage and primitive form of legal punishment is utterly overwhelming and inordinately compelling. We live in the twenty-first century, not the first, and it is high time we abolished caning as a legal form of punishment.

Written by Alex Au

Lee Hsien Loong and the Straits Times annoyed me again today. The newspaper, like the good toady it is, devoted its front page headline to the prime minister’s attempt to pass a motherhood statement off as statesmanlike wisdom.

Right up there in the second paragraph, a quote from him:

“If your politics is wrong, your economics is bound to go wrong. And the reason why so many countries cannot get their economics right is because their politics don’t work,” he observed.

– Straits Times, 6 July 2013, Singapore must get politics rights: PM Lee

He went on to say that

“. . .  so far we have been able to do so,” he added.

– ibid.

Perhaps he was thinking of GDP growth, the topline figure that the Singapore government pays homage to above anything else, as a measure of  ”right economics”.  Perhaps too, he was tacitly comparing Singapore with the United States, a country that in the past has been cited by him and his cabinet colleagues as an instructive example of dysfunctional politics, what with Congressional budget showdowns and all.

Indeed, Singapore compares well when viewed over a ten-year period:

But he should be careful not to gloat too soon. Less than a month ago, “Private sector economists expect the Singapore economy to grow by 2.3 per cent this year — down from their previous estimate of 2.8 per cent in March,” reported ChannelNews Asia (Link). Even the Ministry of Trade and Industry said on 23 May 2013 that “it will maintain the GDP growth forecast for 2013 at 1.0 to 3.0 per cent” — in other words, with 2 percent as its mid-forecast (Link).

In the United States, the range of GDP growth forecasts for 2013 — and there are plenty you can find on the web — are roughly in the same ballpark. Moreover, its first quarter figure beat Singapore’s handsomely. ”Gross domestic product rose at a 2.4 percent annualized rate, the Commerce Department said today in Washington,” reported Bloomberg on 30 May 2013, referring to the January – March 2013 period. The comparable Q1-2013 figure for Singapore was 0.2 percent.

Moreover, we need also to bear in mind that over the ten-year period, Singapore has seen massive immigration. With more hands on deck, we can naturally expect a percentage or two added to the GDP growth. On the other hand, one might argue that the cost of such a high rate of immigration has not been captured in our GDP data, but nonetheless experienced in quality of life and housing prices.

More importantly, topline figures are only one measure of economic health. What about how wealth is shared? Singapore’s Gini index of household income (a measure of income disparity) is generally a shade worse than the US’.

These considerations taken together, this attempt by Lee to claim moral superiority for the People’s Action Party’s (PAP) iron-fisted style of government by reference to the economy must be treated with skepticism.

* * * * *

Perhaps he was thinking of Turkey, Brazil and now Egypt, countries that have taken newspaper headlines from him through the outpouring of popular discontent on the streets.  It would have worried our government to watch what was happening in these places. Massive street activism is not at all part of their constipated notion of “right politics”, and the fear of Singaporeans doing likewise no doubt motivates all manner of laws not just against the freedom of assembly but also the freedom of speech, lest speech rouse people to action.

It is impossible to have an exhaustive discussion here of the events in those countries, and in any case, there aren’t a lot of immediately apparent parallels with Singapore. For example, the important element of creeping Islamisation in bringing dissenters out onto the streets — in the case of Turkey and Egypt — is not mirrored here, though some Singaporeans might point to a creeping Christianisation of the Singapore state as cause for concern. That said, if one looks beyond Islamisation, one also sees a creeping authoritarianism in both the Erdogan and Morsi governments (in Turkey and Egypt respectively). To the extent this brings out protestors, one might likewise argue that the Singapore government ignores these 21st Century trends at its peril.

It is Brazil that I find interesting. Massive street demonstrations were triggered by a 20-centavo (11 Singapore cents) rise in public transport fares in Sao Paulo. Millions marched in various cities for over a week. It took a while for observers to understand what was going on in people’s  feelings, but eventually commentators seem to have reached a consensus that Brazilians were disgusted with the way their federal and state governments were spending lavishly on glittering sports stadiums in the lead-up to the 2014 football World Cup and the 2016 Olympics in Rio de Janeiro while public and social services (health, education, transport) remained as rotten as ever. Governments that keep too much an eye on international acclaim and prestige projects at the expense of overall well-being have been put on notice.

Did the Singapore government notice?

Hmmm . . . .

The sidebar to the main story on Straits Times’ front page (as you can see from the picture at top) showcases Lee Hsien’s Loong’s boast about Marina Bay.

“There’s only one Marina Bay in the world,” he says — another meaningless statement. There is after all only one Canary Wharf, one Silicon Valley, one Cotai Strip and one St Moritz. What does that prove?

If anything,  Marina Bay’s shiny skyscrapers, inflated-ego ferris wheel (now in receivership), the energy-intensive, high-entrance fee gardens, and the giant casino with shops and restaurants too expensive for most Singaporeans to even smell, suggest exactly the same misplaced focus on prestige projects that brought the millions out in Brazil.

* * * * *

There was something else in Lee’s statement about getting politics right that bothered me. It reminded me of this slip of the tongue during the 2006 general election when he told voters not to vote in opposition members of parliament. If they did, he would have to spend all his time thinking up ways to “fix” them and he’d have no time to govern, he told his crowd. Given this history, one cannot help but ask what Lee really means by “getting politics right”. Does he picture a scenario of the People’s Action Party reigning with little dissent inside and outside parliament? One where his government has complete freedom to implement whatever muddled-headed policies it chooses, beguiled by its own sense of inerrant wisdom?

If one takes into account runaway housing prices, soaring healthcare costs, crowded and frequently-breaking down public transport, wide income disparity, all kinds of restrictions on liberty, and a steady destruction of the independence of many state institutions, I am not at all convinced that we have “right politics” producing right outcomes.

In fact, one can easily argue that when Brazilians took to the streets to demand accountability, and when President Dilma Rousseff acknowledged the validity of people’s  dissent, promising to turn policies around, that was politics that was much more “right” and likely to produce better outcomes than Lee and the PAP’s brand of silence-all-opposition rule.

Alex Au Waipang

*The writer blogs at http://yawningbread.wordpress.com

The 70:20:10 framework is a rule of the thumb framework adopted by most MNC HRs when deciding your competency and deciding if they should call you for interview or not. I worked in fortune 500 companies and they have all openly declared that they adopted this framework in determining a person's competency, and whether they are suitable to be hired for a job. 

Likewise, my gut feel is that you can also expect your salary to be 10:20:70. Fresh graduates get 3k = 10%. You extrapolate you can figure out that your most elite CEO/president probably might get 30k.

You have fancy degrees from NTU, NUS, SMU? So what? only 10% importance whether you get the job or not. The rest is Experience - 70%, exposure - 20%.

Some Exceptions I can think of:
- If you are from Havard, MIT, Standford or Oxford, elite universities. 
- If you work in government sector, they have different framework of judging your competency 
 

Source:The 70:20:10 Framework

Agree or Disagree with me? Pen your views down

I hope I can spark a good vibrant debate with this thread.

I know that my proof is only from my own experience. Sorry in advance that Its not really concrete proof. You want concrete proof, bring this framework to your recruitment HR and ask them. And share your findings here.

WahKao3

Editor's Note: Do you agree with the author? Share it with us below!

TRS reader Dhiren saw a small hatchback get crushed by a lorry in a four-vehicle pile-up, which also involved a Mercedes saloon and a double-decker bus, along Ang Mo Kio Ave 5 on Saturday afternoon.

The male driver of the hatchback was trapped in his car and had to be extracted by Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF) officers with heavy appliances, reports The Straits Times. 

An SCDF spokesman said the driver was conscious when conveyed by ambulance to Tan Tock Seng Hospital where he was found to have suffered multiple injuries. The female driver of the bus was also sent to hospital after she complained of pain in her stomach and right knee. 

The accident took place just before the traffic light junction of Ang Mo Kio Ave 5 and Serangoon Ave 6. The police said they received a call about the accident at about 1.55pm. Investigations are ongoing.

Said the TRS reader:

"I was on the way to Ang Mo Kio Hub and saw this very bad accident.

"I am not sure if anyone was injured.

"Police cars were at the scene."

By Donald Low

Meritocracy is widely regarded as a core principle of governance in Singapore. Basic disagreement over it was also one of the reasons why Singapore separated from Malaysia. The meritocracy principle – that we try to equalise opportunities not outcomes, and that we allocate rewards on the basis of an individual’s merit or his abilities and achievements – is as close as anything gets to being a national ideology. In recent years however, there has been growing disquiet over meritocracy as it is practised in Singapore: the excessive competition it engenders (particularly in our education system), the stress and anxiety it causes, and the inequality that many see as the result of an unfettered meritocracy.

Defining Meritocracy: Rewarding Type vs Rewarding Effort

The first question that should guide our reflections on meritocracy is whether it should reward type or effort. The main justification for a system that rewards people by merit is that it encourages effort. An economist might argue that meritocracy helps society deal with the problem of moral hazard that is likely to arise with other ways of allocating rewards. When rewards are tied to one’s abilities and achievements, people are motivated to strive and be the best they can be. In contrast, when rewards are tied to inherited wealth, connections or race, people’s behaviours might change in morally hazardous ways: corruption and rent-seeking behaviours increase, people channel more resources to socially unproductive activities that benefit themselves (and their families) but not society.

But it appears to me that the meritocracy practised in Singapore – especially in our education system – is one which rewards type more so than effort. That is, our meritocratic system seems to reward people who possess the “right” attributes. An economist might describe our meritocracy as one which aims to solve the problem of adverse selection – the problem of sorting or distinguishing the good from the rest. Adverse selection problems are, for instance, common in insurance markets where the insurer often cannot distinguish between good risks (those he wants to insure) and the bad risks (those he does not want to insure). Consequently, the insurer devises ways to get his potential customers to signal or reveal their riskiness; he also chooses to insure only the right risk types.

Like moral hazard, the problem of adverse selection is also a problem of information asymmetry. Both problems arise because one party is unable to perfectly monitor or observe the behaviour or quality of another party. But whereas the moral hazard perspective highlights how people’s behaviours might change when the rules (for allocating rewards) are changed, the adverse selection perspective focusses attention on how quality (or merit) is determined.

A meritocracy which is focussed on rewarding type as opposed to rewarding effort suffers from at least three disadvantages. The first is that we may define or measure merit poorly, yet assign too much importance to these imperfect measures of merit. Many commentators have pointed out how the PSLE system – a very precise way of dealing with the adverse selection or sorting problem – is too consequential in that a single examination at a relatively young age determines too much of a person’s subsequent education outcomes. Given reasonable doubt over whether it is capturing and assessing merit correctly, the great importance that the current education system attaches to PSLE scores is clearly problematic.

Second, when a meritocracy is overly focussed on sorting the best from the rest – with more rewards channelled to the former – the incentive for individuals to gain a competitive edge through non-meritocratic means is accentuated. Starting positions, parental background and connections begin to matter more; inequality in this generation is more likely to be reproduced in the next. In the context of our education system, the preferential access to schools that the children of alumni enjoy, the higher concentration of good schools in affluent neighbourhoods, and the greater resources that well-to-do families have for tuition and enrichment programmes are examples of how our meritocracy might contribute to inequality and lower mobility.

Third, a meritocratic system focussed on rewarding type forces people to compete for relative position or advantage. A system that measures people on relative as opposed to absolute performance is more likely to be wasteful. The analogy that is commonly given is that of everyone at a stadium standing to get a better view. While individually rational, this is wasteful for the group as a whole. When everyone decides (rationally) to put in more resources for the positional good (a better view), relative positions are unchanged but everyone “spends more” just to maintain their relative position. We would all be better off if we can come to some binding agreement to spend less in this “arms race”.

This kind of collective action problems characterises many parts of our meritocratic system. For instance, it ails our education system where students are graded on a curve in examinations. It also explains why parents probably spend much more on private tuition than what is collectively rational. Competing for limited places in choice schools – for example, through parent volunteer schemes – is yet another example of a zero-sum arms race in our education system.

Another problem with a meritocratic system which allocates rewards based on relative performance is that it reduces trust and cooperation. Anyone who has ever been in contention for a promotion in which only one person can get the position will understand this. Since my success now depends on my outperforming the others, I have no incentive to help my colleagues succeed. Meritocracy shapes individual behaviours and social norms. When the form of meritocracy that is practised rations rewards by relative performance, it could promote a selfish, “me first” mentality and erode norms of trust and cooperation.

A meritocracy based on relative performance may also not raise average performance even as it “stretches out” the group’s performance and raises inequality. One might argue that when rewards are allocated on the basis of relative performance, the incentives for individuals to excel are stronger. Average performance should increase. While this is probably true for top performers, the effects on the rest of the group are less predictable. For instance, those further down the ability curve might feel discouraged and opt out of the system that they feel they do not have a reasonable chance of success in. Stress and (performance) anxiety are also likely to increase. As epidemiologists have shown, higher stress levels produce cortisol in our bodies; over sustained periods, this increases the risks of illnesses such as hypertension, psychiatric disorders and cancers. As in an arms race, everyone loses out when they compete for relative position.

The argument here is not that we should allocate rewards based only on absolute performance and avoid measuring ourselves on relative performance in all contexts. That would be unrealistic. Sometimes we have no choice but to compete for relative position. Some things are intrinsically scarce, and competition for these things will inevitably be zero-sum. One thinks of the university valedictorian, the Olympic champion, limited university places, the CEO appointment, and many other contexts where we have to accept that scarce rewards are – and should be – allocated on relative merit.

But when we compete for relative gain, we should recognise that this form of meritocracy imposes potential costs on society. This makes it incumbent on the government (which has the main responsibility for dealing with collective action problems) to find ways to ameliorate the harmful effects of competitive “arms races” – especially through fiscal redistribution. I will return to this point on redistribution later in the essay.

As a society, we also have a degree of autonomy to decide on the things we want to use an absolute yardstick to determine rewards, and the things we decide on the basis of relative merit. In some contexts, we can choose whether we want to be a meritocracy that rewards effort or one that rewards type. For instance, while it may seem natural to us that admission to secondary schools should be based on relative merit or type, the fact is that in many other countries with high-performing education systems, examinations (graded on a curve) are not used to determine high school admissions. Even when such examinations are used, they are seldom used to the point where they are as consequential as ours are.

Regulating Meritocracy: Wall Street versus Silicon Valley

The second question that should guide our thinking on meritocracy is what rules should govern and constrain the behaviour of those who have done well in the meritocratic system.  There is no prima facie reason to believe that those who have succeeded in a meritocracy will channel their energies to socially useful activities. Neither should there be a presumption that our legal and regulatory systems are always able to deter, anticipate and punish the abuses and wrong-doings of the successful. The risks of regulatory capture, and of regulators lacking the information and incentives to do the right thing are all real – even for advanced economies with well-developed institutions.

The global financial crisis which began in Wall Street is a case in point of how an ostensibly meritocratic system can wreak havoc on the rest of society. Wall Street meritocracy is toxic for at least three reasons.

The first is moral hazard. Bankers took on enormous risks knowing that their institutions enjoyed implicit guarantees from the state and would be bailed out if their bets went bad. They enjoyed an unlimited upside even as their downside was capped by the state. This system of flawed incentives, combined with the opportunities created by financial innovation and securitisation, explained why Wall Street banks peddled so many subprime mortgages to people who were not credit-worthy, why they sliced and diced these mortgages into securities which were then sold to the investors who could not easily monitor their quality, and why they paid themselves large fees for increasing risks in the financial system. When these securities lost their value in the face of collapse in the housing boom, Wall Street banks were shielded from the consequences of their bad decisions because these institutions were deemed “too big to fail”.

Second, it is highly doubtful that all the financial “innovation” on Wall Street was socially useful. While securitisation is potentially a good thing (structured properly, it spreads and diversifies risks), it actually increases systemic fragility when the risks of the individual securities are highly correlated and when the maintenance of their values depends on flawed assumptions (like the assumption that house prices would never fall). The former Chairman of the US Fed, Paul Volcker, went as far as to say that “the only socially useful banking innovation (in recent decades) was the invention of the ATM.”

Contrast the meritocracy of Wall Street – where losses are socialised and gains privatised, and where “innovation” resulted in products that are socially harmful – with the meritocracy of Silicon Valley, and it becomes clear that we have two kinds of meritocracy with contrasting outcomes. Nobody is bailed out in Silicon Valley; an entrepreneur succeeds or fails based on whether consumers find his inventions useful. While Silicon Valley is also prone to speculative booms and busts, the damage it causes society when its bubble bursts is far more limited.

Third, Wall Street meritocracy breeds a pernicious, self-justifying, entitlement narrative. For example, Wall Street bankers justified the decision to pay themselves millions in bonuses from the bailout monies they received from taxpayers on the grounds that not doing so would result in talent leaving the financial industry. The kind of meritocracy practised in Wall Street breeds a belief among its beneficiaries that they are entitled to their rewards, that the system is inherently just, and that inequality is a natural consequence of an efficient and normatively desirable system. They view those who have not succeeded in the system as slothful or lacking in talent or merit – and undeserving of state support. It therefore increases the rich’s resistance to the redistributive policies needed to tackle rising inequality. Over time, such a meritocratic system entrenches inequality and immobility; the risks of this society becoming permanently more stratified and divided by class are also much greater.

Needless to say, the kind of meritocracy practised in Silicon Valley is superior to the meritocracy laced with corporate socialism practised in Wall Street. The former is just and legitimate in the eyes of average citizens because the successful bear the full consequences of their decisions and are not insulated from the risks they take. People are more accepting of inequality and uneven rewards when there isn’t one set of rules for the winners and another for the rest. Wall Street suffers from a severe legitimacy crisis not only because the bankers caused so much damage, but also because they are widely perceived to have gotten away with it, and because of their sense of entitlement.

In Singapore, we are frequently reminded of the risks and moral hazard problems of providing too much help for the poor. This is the main justification for why we must avoid a welfare state. The crisis is a powerful reminder that the risks of moral hazard are far greater when the rich and successful are not properly regulated and reined in. Corporate malfeasance imposes a much larger cost on society than the fecklessness of the poor addicted to government welfare. For a longer exposition on the social costs and risks imposed by the rise of the super-rich, Joe Stiglitz’s May 2011 article in Vanity Fair is a must-read.

Another important lesson from the crisis is that not only do markets sometimes fail, but the rules and institutions designed to anticipate and correct these market failures can also fail. In a healthy democracy (and meritocracy), the watchman also needs to be watched. This calls for eternal vigilance on the part of citizens and civil society. It means creating strong safeguards against regulatory capture, increasing transparency and public accountability, ensuring the (political) independence of public institutions, and maintaining a healthy distance between regulatory agencies and the corporate entities they regulate.

Legitimising Meritocracy: Trickle-down versus Trickle-up

The third question is how we reconcile meritocracy with inequality. While we like meritocracy for rewarding hard work and recognising people’s talent and abilities, we dislike the unequal outcomes it produces. Is this an inevitable trade-off? If we want an efficient system that creates strong incentives for people to strive, must we also accept the highly unequal distribution of incomes and wealth that such a system produces?

One way to think about this question is to contrast two worldviews. The first, which might be termed “trickle-down meritocracy”, sees the growth of the economy and the progress of society as driven by its elite, by its best and brightest. A society organised along the lines of this worldview channels a larger share of resources and opportunities to its high performers and talents. A trickle-down system is not concerned with equality of outcomes, but with ensuring that its talents have the room to achieve and excel, and are not shackled by high taxation and excessive regulations.

In such a society, economic efficiency takes precedence over distributional concerns or considerations of social equity. Indeed, this view contends that the poor are best served by providing the best and brightest with maximum opportunities to succeed as they are ones who create jobs for the rest. Holding the talented back by having onerous taxes or regulatory restraints on markets undermines growth and hurts the poor – the very people whom the advocates of social justice claim to help. A trickle-down approach also means that government and society should be concerned more with growing the pie (through market-friendly and pro-talent policies), and less with how the pie is distributed.

In the last twenty years, Singapore society has probably become more of such a society. Income tax rates have been slashed, wealth taxes reduced (for example, the estate duty was abolished in a place that already does not tax capital gains), and public spending as a share of GDP reduced. The state has also not become more redistributive in the face of rising inequality. Consequently, even after taking into account taxes and transfers, inequality today is higher than it was a decade ago before government redistribution.

A second worldview, which one might term “trickle-up meritocracy”, sees government redistribution and fair outcomes as necessary corollaries to market-friendly, pro-capital policies and the meritocratic system. According to this view, meritocracy is legitimate only if it benefits the bulk of society – not just in absolute terms, but also in relative terms. This is because greater inequality reduces subjective well-being, social mobility, and trust. Meritocracy with high and rising inequality sows the seeds of its own demise. If we care about preserving meritocracy, it is incumbent on us to limit the rise in inequality.

Trickle-up meritocracy also differs from the trickle-down variant in at least two other ways. First, it contends that ensuring equal opportunities is necessary, but not sufficient. Because people start with differences in talent and resources, equalising resources at the start to some extent is justified on the grounds that this is necessary to ensure equal access to opportunities. Such a system is still meritocratic as the equalisation is done at the start of the competitive race and does not diminish incentives for everyone to run as fast as they can. The race is competitive and meritocratic, but the state has intervened to adjust starting positions and given those with fewer resources a head start.

Second, trickle-up meritocracy believes that instead of subsiding and extending tax breaks to the rich in the hope that they will create jobs and prosperity for the rest, fiscal policy should be focussed on increasing the human capital of the rest, ensuring they can afford basic needs like housing and good healthcare, assuring them of retirement security and social protection against contingencies like involuntary unemployment, and reducing inequality. In the long run, these measures also benefit corporations and those further up the income ladder.

Spending on these social goods, which is likely to require vigorous fiscal redistribution in the context of today’s globalisation and rapid technological change, is necessary to save meritocracy from itself. Indeed, without these redistributive measures, meritocracy rests on increasingly shaky and tenuous foundations.

Conclusions

In the national debate on meritocracy, let us avoid framing the issue as a false choice: meritocracy or no meritocracy. A constructive and meaningful debate would instead focus on whether ours is a meritocracy that rewards effort or type; what rules and institutions we should have to regulate those who have succeeded in the meritocratic system; and what kind of social spending would maximise “trickle-up” benefits.

Donald Low is Senior Fellow and Assistant Dean (Research Centres) at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, National University of Singapore.

*Article first appeared on http://www.ipscommons.sg/index.php/categories/featured/104-good-meritocracy-bad-meritocracy

At some point in the recent past, I mentioned that if I had the choice I’d prefer that the best and brightest not take up accounting as a first career. (I even said something to the effect that, I’d prefer that those who did do accounting come from the lower middle or even lowest quartile.) Clearly, that statement would not have been appreciated by accountants. One individual, presumably an accountant, even accused me of saying that only “bottom feeders” do accounting (which was a mischaracterization/“slanderous accusation”, plain and simple). Naturally, his angry accusations were accompanied by some name calling.

While I did talk about what I felt to be the disciplines which are more far more strongly associated with value creation, this was lost on him/her and possibly others. Perhaps my statement was too blunt and thus elicited such an emotional response. (Well, my statement was too blunt, and I won’t sugarcoat that.) While I do not regret what I was trying to say, there is regret for the way I said it. Saying that I believe something generates little value does border on offensive, and it is poor form to respond to rudeness (which preceded my comment in the exchange) with such harshness. Let me refine what I said without loss of frankness and truthfulness.

There are two dominant domains within business “administration”: human resources and accounting. The less “administrative” side of business includes domains like supply chain management, (strategic) marketing, sales, and financial engineering. These are about as general as one can get. If we think about supply chain management as “product/service delivery”, all real world businesses have elements of the above.

Of two big business administration domains, HR has grown beyond its (prehistorically) original ambit of managing payroll, leave applications and doing the paperwork for hires and resignations. Now there is the notion of “strategic HR” where one considers company capability, capability development, current and future business opportunities given capabilities, manpower landscape projections, leadership development and the list goes on. I like how HR has expanded its role to the extent that some business commentators have begun to say that the first task of a CEO is HR. Various synonyms of impressive come to mind.

Accounting, however, remains mostly a job of reconciling and collating numbers from reports from disparate business functions. At a (slightly) more interesting level, there is “tax and P&L shaping” (issues relating to the recognition of revenue and expense), cash flow estimates for projects, cash flow projections for the issue of securities and debates on “goodwill”. (I googled after writing this, but have not found any activity beyond these that I have long been aware of.) Accountants need knowledge of accounting regulations, especially those whose firms need to comply with different reporting standards (especially if one can’t just “comply to the most stringent part of the supply chain”). Still, I am highly sceptical of the type of value that an accountant brings because most of the work can be automated away. Perhaps not the estimates for project value, but most can, given the will to impose greater consistency across departments. It may be that someone has to be there to ask questions of the type of financial strategy to pursue, but is that not the role of the C-Suite? (The CFO is not an accountant, he is there is use finance to enable business operations. The CFO is a financial engineer, typically served/supported by accountants.)

So, though accountants have a role to play in corporations, I do not believe that we should invest our stock of “best and brightest” in that discipline. Have some pursue HR plus some other discipline perhaps, but not accountancy.

I will not discount the usefulness in having accounting “skills”, the basics get one pretty far. Amateur investors look at financial reports and, with a few simple spread sheet operations to factor in (sometimes questionable) assumptions about future performance and activities, obtain an estimate of future earnings. (In tandem with a PE ratio, they obtain one of those x-month “target prices”.) Of course amateurs are unlikely to know the “tricks of the trade” for hiding some things and airbrushing others, which is why forensic accountants retain their value proposition (especially those working for short sellers).

I would like to quote from Ariel Rubenstein’s testimony before the university Senate (of The Hebrew University in Israel) with regards to a proposal to allow students to receive a bachelor’s degree after studying only accounting:

Some may assert the cliché that accounting is an academic subject, but with all due respect to this new pillar of scientific experience, I wonder how anyone can compare accounting to mathematics and biology and philosophy and linguistics. These are the subjects that we should be encouraging the outstanding students to study, rather than the elective course on “Accounting for Residents Committees”.

I agree with his position. While “Accounting for Residents’ Committees” is many orders of magnitude less complex than accounting for a global conglomerate with a diverse range of business activities and types of asset flows, the size of the task and the amount of work required to surmount it simply mean manifold variations on the same theme. I do not see it as intellectually challenging, but rather, tedious. At least the forensic accountants retain the element of discovery in their job. (And their adversaries, the Enron types, will be in a constant arms race with them. A sad waste of intellectual resources, I feel.)

I hope our best and brightest pursue fields like engineering, computer science and industrial product design. “High potentials” are a scarce resource that should be tapped to their fullest in direct value creation. Those are the kinds of disciplines such that where a job is unavailable, one with knowledge and an idea can create a cluster of jobs. (It would be blunt, but accurate to say that “Accountants take jobs; they don’t create jobs.”) So, unpleasant as it sounds, I do not believe that accounting is the way to go for the most promising young students. But it is their life and they will live it as they will.

(Perhaps we want some top talent to take on accounting so as to guard against those that slink to the dark side. But, as mentioned, I feel the arms race is a waste.)

I believe that I will be proven wrong eventually1. That would happen if and when accountants shift the focus of their profession in a big way to real time analysis of data, supported by the automation I said could “automate away” most of their current jobs. (As we used to call it: “Freeing up capacity to take on higher value work.”) That would enable “innovations” like generalizing (generalized versions of) “AB testing”, implementing them with respect to complex metrics that bring together global data (hence taking learning and earning to a higher level). In some sense, the era of data is one where accounting has the necessary catalyst to transform itself just as HR has. Given the clear value proposition, I believe it to be only a matter of time.

But until then…

[1]. In fact, change is long overdue. Have a look at this from 1960.

Jeremy Chen

* Jeremy is currently a PhD student at the Department of Decision Sciences at NUS Business School. Jeremy believes in the possibility of a beautiful synthesis of “social justice” and “the free market”. He also hopes for less politicking and more policy discussion in the political arena. He blogs at http://jeremy-chen.org.

NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden has blasted the Obama administration and announced that he actually had more details to release, even though it turned out that his relations with states who initially backed him appeared increasingly strained.

Quite a few Russians leaving the country these days have been looking for Snowden in a transit area at Moscow’s Sheremetyevo airport with the only intention to help, but the terminal seems to be too huge. Anyway, Edward is still believed to be staying there while asking for asylum in a number of countries – Russia, Brazil, China, India and Ireland.

Snowden has released a statement on WikiLeaks, accusing the United States of deception in a campaign to prevent him from finding political asylum along with leaving him a stateless person by revoking his passport of the United States. He said that he was free and was able to continue publishing details that serve the public interest. But he seems to believe that some American spooks are going to bump him off. Snowden claimed that regardless of the number of days he has left, he remains dedicated to the fight for justice. If any of those days ahead realize a contribution to the common good, everyone will have the principles of Ecuador to thank.

However, at the moment his relationship with Ecuador is being tested – the matter is that the government, which earlier offered him a temporary travel pass, now says that Snowden can only get asylum when he gets to Ecuador – a government representative admitted that giving him a temporary travel pass to fly to Moscow was a mistake and that Snowden was now problem of Russia and Ecuador was no longer responsible for getting Edward to Ecuador. In his statement, Snowden accused US president for pressing Ecuador to turn him away and of depriving him of his family and freedom to travel.

The most interesting part is that Russian President Vladimir Putin said Snowden could stay in Russia if he stops harming the US. In response, Snowden supporters argued that it is not the US in general he is harming, but its secretive spying organizations. They also admit that the best course for Putin is to say that the country isn’t working with Snowden, but still has no intention of handing him over to the US. Putin confirmed that Russia has never given up anyone to anybody and is not going to.

Last night, I was invited to observe a financial counseling session conducted by my good friend Leong Sze Hian and his group of volunteers.

He wanted me to have a feel of the type of financial issues faced by ordinary Singaporeans and the profile of these Singaporeans. The problems mostly revolved around CPF, HDB and loss of jobs and they affected mainly middle aged Singaporeans.

Those who came to consult Sze Hian and his volunteers would usually have seen their Members of Parliament but nevertheless still came to seek practical solutions that they hoped Sze Hian and volunteers with their financial expertise and knowledge could provide.

Sze Hian and his volunteers have been conducting these financial counseling sessions for the past 10 years. In the last 2 years, they have held these sessions on Thursday evenings in the office of the Singapore People’s Party at 1 Siang Kuang Avenue.

Tan Jee Say

* Jee Say was a Presidential candidate in the 2011 Presidential Election. The article first appeared on his facebook: http://www.facebook.com/TanJeeSay.

Living and working with colleagues, vendors and customers of different races and religions is a part of life in Singapore. It is an integral component of our social fabric and our workplaces. This diversity enriches our culture and is a source of our strength as a cosmopolitan and dynamic city state.

This happy state of affairs did not come about naturally. In fact, it is anything but natural – we see examples all around the world where racial tensions have caused great disruption to the peace and stability of those countries, affecting the lives of their people as a result. For Singapore, we also experienced tensions and learnt the hard way before we decided to come together to build this nation as one united people, to prosper and progress. We are now able to enjoy the company of friends and colleagues in our educational institutes and workplaces, regardless of their racial, religious or cultural backgrounds.

Some believe that we have ‘arrived’ and should be more confident of our people’s maturity. We continue to make efforts to ensure that everyone can live and work together harmoniously, not because of a lack of confidence in our people, but because what we have is too precious to be taken for granted.

At the workplace, many of us spend most of our time working and interacting with colleagues of different races and religions. It is crucial that employers and business leaders understand the importance of building an inclusive culture for all to work together in. I know that many companies have made efforts to do so, to be sensitive to the needs of different racial groups and also to recognise and celebrate our differences. For example, I am aware that many companies have provided separate pantry facilities like microwaves, toaster ovens and fridges for Halal and non-Halal food. We also know of companies that have organised fun and creative activities on a regular basis to help their diverse workforce bond and work better together. These activities include setting up internal interest groups, where employees of different races and religions can come together and engage in their hobbies as a team, and also to celebrate the various ethnic festivals.

Celebrating Racial Harmony at the workplace

Some say that we all hold biases for or against others because of their race or cultural backgrounds. Are we then inherently tribal in nature? Do we identify ourselves by our skin colour? Does it really matter? Instead, we should perhaps focus on the things we share – common reference points and shared experiences that bring us together as a nation; that will build into our heritage and identity as Singaporeans.

MOM officers join experts Mdm Lili Ho and Aunty Esther in making dragon beard candies.

MOM officers enjoy themselves at the Malay Kueh-making Workshop.

So how can we contribute? All of us can play a part by thinking about how we can influence those around us, both at home and at the workplace. At the workplace, it is clear that employers and business leaders have a responsibility and are in a position to create a workplace culture which can allow employees to appreciate and respect one another’s customs and cultures. I encourage all employers to take the lead in creating a working environment favourable to your employees. Employees will in turn be encouraged to interact more and come to have a deeper appreciation and respect for one another. This July, I would like to urge employers and business leaders to celebrate Racial Harmony Day in your own workplaces. My colleagues in the Community Engagement Programme have come up with some simple yet meaningful suggestions for doing so. Organise a potluck lunch where colleagues share traditional food from their various cultures. Let everyone come to work wearing their ethnic costumes, and even have a “Best Dressed Colleague” contest.

Do visit the MOM’s Community Engagement Programme website for more information on how to build an inclusive, harmonious and resilient workplace.

I encourage employers to do what you can. Choose to make a difference.

Let’s continue to work together to ensure harmony in our workplaces and in the greater community!

Acting Minister for Manpower
Tan Chuan-Jin

[Source]: http://www.momsingapore.blogspot.sg/

MOM letter of warning, click to read.

Previously my maid had complained and threatened to tell lies to MOM in order to get more off days. Read the full story at: http://therealsingapore.com/content/my-maid-threaten-me-give-her-more-days

More updates. MOM sent my husband a stern warning in response to the lies they received from my maid. (Pls see photo above) It is ridiculous, liars get to go off scot free. I still am not able to black list her. They cannot prove I force her work, now says I cant bring her out???

I went to see my MP, as usual didnt get to see him. The grass root leader says it's not an issue as it's just warning. But I beg to differ. I did no wrong, but get warning?

My husband's Note to MOM

It is with total disgust and utter disappointment to receive a letter from MOM . I have attached a copy.

I am already MORE THAN UNHAPPY that I am not able to blacklist my domestic worker and now I get a warning for breaching Section 25(2) (b). I totally cannot understand it.

She lied and threatened us and got away scot free, free to come back to Singapore to victimise another fellow Singaporean. If there were no CCTV to prove my wife’s innocence, will she be jailed? Where is the protection for employers?

Putting this aside, how is it that going with my wife to her shop on a regular basis be a violation of Section 25(2) b. We are not able to leave her home with the kids as we are not able to trust her. We have prove that she did not work at the shop.

My wife, by the way, is also a handicapped, that needs assistance. My wife will bring the kids down to replenish the stock herself, the maid’s job is to look after the kids. We had our own staff there. On a rare occasion should the staff falls sick and needs to take MC, then my wife will work despite her handicapped. This all had been proven to your Ministry.

If this is a violation, then can I take it to understand that employers

1) Going to fetch kids from school
2) Going supermarket or food centre to buy things
3) Going out to eat with employers, but need to feed employer’s kid 
4) Go shopping with employers

All these will constitute as violations?

As such, I refused to admit liability on this matter.

June Tan