Showing posts with label Economy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Economy. Show all posts
Wednesday, July 08, 2020
A great political speech, said from the heart #GE2020
A friend sent me this. Said it was one of the best political speeches he has heard. I watched and I cannot agree more.
Tuesday, July 07, 2020
Intent and plans for the future of Singapore #GE2020
In the age of rampant falsehoods appearing on social media, especially on Facebook, it made sense to have a POFMA law. It is widely believed that the last US elections in 2016 was "rigged" by the Russians that led to the surprise victory of Donald J. Trump. Granted that there was a lot of animosity against Hillary Clinton, it was still an eyebrow-raising result. After 4 years, the US is a former shadow of itself in terms of leadership in Science and Technology, and perhaps more importantly, moral leadership in a world that is increasing a dangerous place to live in, and I am not just referring to COVD-19.
When Singapore pushed through its POFMA, many were concerned that it could be mis-used. And this appears to have happened. In GE2020, there does not appear to be any undue influence outside of the country, nor on social media from foreign sources that anyone, much less the PAP government, can point to that would make POFMA relevant. Some what do we do? We train the laws at our own people. I don't think there is any doubt in ANYBODY's mind that every candidate standing for GE2020 loves Singapore and want the best for the country they truly call their home.
So this selective use, or more precisely, mis-used, of POFMA laws proves the fears of detractors to be well-founded. It is not wrong of anybody to oppose the intent or plans that the PAP government may have raised but not subsequently implemented. It is a fair warning to people that a party that has a tendency to think a particular way may not have given up entirely on the idea, and to forewarn people that while these plans have not been realised, it will not be raised again some time in the future, when Elections are well out of the way. Then what?
This is why we must have good people like Dr Tambyah, Chee Soon Juan, Pritam Singh, Tan Cheng Bock and Jamus Lim in Parliament. The GRC is just an irritant, though eventually, probably, decisive. The dice is loaded.
Wednesday, August 17, 2016
Thinking anew
I congratulate the Singapore Government for granting our newly minted Olympian, Joseph Schooling a deferment of his National Service obligations for another 5 years, i.e. till 2020. The reason is so that he can take the time to train for the 2020 Tokyo Olympics. Winning the first gold medal merely signals the start of more to come for this young boy. We should support him as much as we can.
This exemption, however, is nothing new, nor out of character for the government. Some, though, have been controversial, like the exemption that was granted to President Tony Tan's son, Patrick Tan, whose NS was disrupted so that he could proceed to the US to study medicine. He eventually returned with a PhD and completed his NS. Since the 1980's NS enlistees who secure a place in NUS to study medicine will have their NS deferred to train as doctors before they routinely complete their NS as Medical Offices (MO). Although the statutory age for enlistment is 18 years old, people who are students in the local Polytechnics are also granted deferment until they complete their Polytechnic studies, by which time they will be 19 or 20 years old.
Perhaps it is time to re-think NS deferments in the wider context, and not just for the sake of sporting achievements. I know of many young people who have great ideas and would have started companies to develop and eventually commercialise their products, if not for the disruptive 2 years that every Singapore male is obliged to put away soldiering in the fields. Some say they can do so once they join the universities after their NS. But for many, the spark of creativity may have been lost by then. Others will say the rewards go to the persistent and the resilient, so NS is a good "testing ground" to gauge whether the initial enthusiasm is a spark that is easily extinguished or continues to smolder. In the former case, we will never know what could have been.
It is really up to the government and its generals to rethink National Service, ironically, for the sake of our nation's economic future whether that is in sports or technological innovation..
This exemption, however, is nothing new, nor out of character for the government. Some, though, have been controversial, like the exemption that was granted to President Tony Tan's son, Patrick Tan, whose NS was disrupted so that he could proceed to the US to study medicine. He eventually returned with a PhD and completed his NS. Since the 1980's NS enlistees who secure a place in NUS to study medicine will have their NS deferred to train as doctors before they routinely complete their NS as Medical Offices (MO). Although the statutory age for enlistment is 18 years old, people who are students in the local Polytechnics are also granted deferment until they complete their Polytechnic studies, by which time they will be 19 or 20 years old.
Perhaps it is time to re-think NS deferments in the wider context, and not just for the sake of sporting achievements. I know of many young people who have great ideas and would have started companies to develop and eventually commercialise their products, if not for the disruptive 2 years that every Singapore male is obliged to put away soldiering in the fields. Some say they can do so once they join the universities after their NS. But for many, the spark of creativity may have been lost by then. Others will say the rewards go to the persistent and the resilient, so NS is a good "testing ground" to gauge whether the initial enthusiasm is a spark that is easily extinguished or continues to smolder. In the former case, we will never know what could have been.
It is really up to the government and its generals to rethink National Service, ironically, for the sake of our nation's economic future whether that is in sports or technological innovation..
Monday, August 24, 2015
Development economics - 101
For those of you who are wondering where the free book "UNDP and the making of the Singapore's Public Service" reported in the Straits Time might be available online, I found a copy here: http://issuu.com/undppublicserv/docs/booklet_undp-sg50-winsemius_digital
You do need to sign up to the Issuu site, but it is worth it for the sheer amount of popular publication such as quite current magazines, available for free on Issuu.
You do need to sign up to the Issuu site, but it is worth it for the sheer amount of popular publication such as quite current magazines, available for free on Issuu.
Saturday, February 09, 2013
Hyperbole
As expected, the much debated Whitepaper on Singapore's future population growth (Population White Paper: A Sustainable Population for a Dynamic Singapore) was passed in Parliament yesterday. What else can you expect when the PAP has more than a two-thirds majority of seats in Parliament. Of course, the Opposition Workers' Party (WP) voted against it. But more significantly, 3 of the 4 Nominated MPs voted against it too, and the other one didn't express support either way.
This issue has been the talk of the town in the past two weeks, in the office, along the corridors, on the streets in the bus stops, at the coffee shops and foodcourts, at home and at mom's place. I am no exception. And you know what? Of the 10 people I spoke to, 10 of them opposed increasing the population to 6.9 million. Goes to show how unrepresentative of Singaporeans Singapore's Parliament is. Well, of course PAP will tell you that mine is an unrepresentative sample of the population, so my 10/10 cannot be taken seriously. But seriously too, I wasn't taking a poll. It just was a fact the everyone I met opposed the idea of having 6.9 million people sharing the limited space on this island. Even those who were staunchly pro-PAP didn't want to venture an opinion. If this issue were put to a Referendum today, I am quite sure that the outcome will be different from what Parliament decided yesterday.
Of course, as the paper got talked about and there was a sense of overwhelming opposition to the numbers, PAP Ministers began to insist that 6.9 million is "not so much a target but more a projection", that the actual number is likely to be between 6.5 - 6.9 million. Some government Ministers went as far as to say that the preferred number is 6.5 million. This is incredible as I understood that the Whitepaper was 1 year in the making, and involved feedback from no less than 2,500 people. After all that time, money and resources (paid for by tax-payers, may I add), our government is not too sure if they have the numbers correct. If not, what are we then debating about? It is no wonder that these same government Ministers not only turned English language teachers but also demonstrated the meaning of "hyperbolic".
Mr S. Iswaran's hyperbole must take the prize hands-down:
“It will exacerbate uncertainty in the economic environment and accelerate business closures and the offshoring of activities...”
“Singaporeans will lose their jobs and instead of productivity-led growth, it would easily tip our economy into a downward spiral. This abrupt move will derail our efforts to boost productivity and restructure the economy...”
“We would be breaking faith with companies who are already invested here and are in the process of ramping up their operations...It will damage our reputation and severely impair our efforts to attract new and different businesses which can offer precisely the kind of diverse jobs that better educated Singaporeans seek...”
“But what the Workers’ Party is proposing is to jam-brake and put our economy in a tailspin, and our businesses and workers risk a hard landing...”
In sum, what he was saying is that Singapore will face imminent collapse if the Whitepaper is rejected. And why? Because businesses will jump ship and go elsewhere, never mind that we have one of the most business-friendly tax regime in the world. Odd that this same "jump ship" argument is not applied equally to the proposed population proportion of 40% foreigners in the Whitepaper. Going by the same logic, if the economy goes south, wouldn't they jump ship too, and leave the 60% who are Singaporeans to sink or swim, assuming that we would have developed a high dependency on their presence?
Fortunately, 13 people in Parliament were not taken in by such hyperbole. They demonstrated more balance, pragmatism and common sense - something that the PAP government USED TO be well-known for. But more importantly, going by my conversation with people on this matter, they were speaking for the majority of Singaporeans.
The PAP government may have won the votes in Parliament yesterday, but it may likely have lost the plot in the long run.
Sources:
http://sg.news.yahoo.com/wp-proposal-is-drastic-and-inherently-risky--s-iswaran-052728130.html
http://sg.news.yahoo.com/govt-clarifies-population-projections-044450169.html
This issue has been the talk of the town in the past two weeks, in the office, along the corridors, on the streets in the bus stops, at the coffee shops and foodcourts, at home and at mom's place. I am no exception. And you know what? Of the 10 people I spoke to, 10 of them opposed increasing the population to 6.9 million. Goes to show how unrepresentative of Singaporeans Singapore's Parliament is. Well, of course PAP will tell you that mine is an unrepresentative sample of the population, so my 10/10 cannot be taken seriously. But seriously too, I wasn't taking a poll. It just was a fact the everyone I met opposed the idea of having 6.9 million people sharing the limited space on this island. Even those who were staunchly pro-PAP didn't want to venture an opinion. If this issue were put to a Referendum today, I am quite sure that the outcome will be different from what Parliament decided yesterday.
Of course, as the paper got talked about and there was a sense of overwhelming opposition to the numbers, PAP Ministers began to insist that 6.9 million is "not so much a target but more a projection", that the actual number is likely to be between 6.5 - 6.9 million. Some government Ministers went as far as to say that the preferred number is 6.5 million. This is incredible as I understood that the Whitepaper was 1 year in the making, and involved feedback from no less than 2,500 people. After all that time, money and resources (paid for by tax-payers, may I add), our government is not too sure if they have the numbers correct. If not, what are we then debating about? It is no wonder that these same government Ministers not only turned English language teachers but also demonstrated the meaning of "hyperbolic".
Mr S. Iswaran's hyperbole must take the prize hands-down:
“It will exacerbate uncertainty in the economic environment and accelerate business closures and the offshoring of activities...”
“Singaporeans will lose their jobs and instead of productivity-led growth, it would easily tip our economy into a downward spiral. This abrupt move will derail our efforts to boost productivity and restructure the economy...”
“We would be breaking faith with companies who are already invested here and are in the process of ramping up their operations...It will damage our reputation and severely impair our efforts to attract new and different businesses which can offer precisely the kind of diverse jobs that better educated Singaporeans seek...”
“But what the Workers’ Party is proposing is to jam-brake and put our economy in a tailspin, and our businesses and workers risk a hard landing...”
In sum, what he was saying is that Singapore will face imminent collapse if the Whitepaper is rejected. And why? Because businesses will jump ship and go elsewhere, never mind that we have one of the most business-friendly tax regime in the world. Odd that this same "jump ship" argument is not applied equally to the proposed population proportion of 40% foreigners in the Whitepaper. Going by the same logic, if the economy goes south, wouldn't they jump ship too, and leave the 60% who are Singaporeans to sink or swim, assuming that we would have developed a high dependency on their presence?
Fortunately, 13 people in Parliament were not taken in by such hyperbole. They demonstrated more balance, pragmatism and common sense - something that the PAP government USED TO be well-known for. But more importantly, going by my conversation with people on this matter, they were speaking for the majority of Singaporeans.
The PAP government may have won the votes in Parliament yesterday, but it may likely have lost the plot in the long run.
Sources:
http://sg.news.yahoo.com/wp-proposal-is-drastic-and-inherently-risky--s-iswaran-052728130.html
http://sg.news.yahoo.com/govt-clarifies-population-projections-044450169.html
Thursday, January 31, 2013
Singapore for Lease
The government of Singapore just announced that its target population growth number, right up to 2030, will be 6.9 million. No one can fault this government for being forward thinking. In fact, right from the very beginning, in 1959, Singapore has been led by a group of highly capable people who put policies into place that has brought it first world status in less than 40 years. You can't take away this achievement. I grew up under this government, and I must say, benefitted from these policies. There may be many naysayers. I suppose they might have had a vastly different and likely unpleasant experience compared to mine, but I would venture to say that for most of us citizens, life has become good. This is brought home the more you travel outside the country.
But I come not to praise the past, important as it may be. Let us not forget history, how we got to where we are lest a collective amnesia comes to haunt us one day. I come to consider how the current leaders appear to have a plan to lease out the entire country to foreigners come 2030. I quote Dr Vivian Balakrishnan, the Minister for the Environment & Water Resources, about the rationale for this policy Whitepaper:
"...we will need some kind of 'top up' over the next two decades - foreigners to work with us, care for us, pay taxes and to help create opportunities...". (Today, 31 Jan 2013, page 4).
If this doesn't sound like renting out our country for monetary returns, I don't know what is. According to the numbers worked out in this scenario, by 2030, we will have 2.5 million foreigners gainfully employed in our midst whereas citizens will make up 3.8 million working people. That's roughly a 40% foreigner and 60% citizen-working population. Well, if you think about it, this scenario is based very much on our experience today. The older citizens among us are well endowed with residential properties. Many rent part or even all of these out to foreigners. It does not take a leap of imagination to arrive at the thought that we can rent out the entire country, much as we do our houses in order for our tenants, the foreigners, to "care for us" and "pay our taxes".
My worry is that this assumes the foreigners amongst our midst are stupid enough to support us in our "old age". Why should they? They come here to make money for themselves, to live for themselves, and to leave when things don't go right. Otherwise they won't be foreigners, would they? They'd would have traded in their foreign citizenship for Singapore's. But our government is an optimistic lot, and they think they can hook these 2.5 million foreigners, hook, line and sinker, to support the old folks in Singapore, willingly or unwillingly.
The optimism expressed in the White Paper goes beyond belief. And given that the current government has messed up the triumvirate policies on foreign workers, transport and housing in the past ten years, it doesn't give me any confidence in the robustness of the policy proposals. The White Paper would likely turn out to be largely a work of fiction.
But I come not to praise the past, important as it may be. Let us not forget history, how we got to where we are lest a collective amnesia comes to haunt us one day. I come to consider how the current leaders appear to have a plan to lease out the entire country to foreigners come 2030. I quote Dr Vivian Balakrishnan, the Minister for the Environment & Water Resources, about the rationale for this policy Whitepaper:
"...we will need some kind of 'top up' over the next two decades - foreigners to work with us, care for us, pay taxes and to help create opportunities...". (Today, 31 Jan 2013, page 4).
If this doesn't sound like renting out our country for monetary returns, I don't know what is. According to the numbers worked out in this scenario, by 2030, we will have 2.5 million foreigners gainfully employed in our midst whereas citizens will make up 3.8 million working people. That's roughly a 40% foreigner and 60% citizen-working population. Well, if you think about it, this scenario is based very much on our experience today. The older citizens among us are well endowed with residential properties. Many rent part or even all of these out to foreigners. It does not take a leap of imagination to arrive at the thought that we can rent out the entire country, much as we do our houses in order for our tenants, the foreigners, to "care for us" and "pay our taxes".
My worry is that this assumes the foreigners amongst our midst are stupid enough to support us in our "old age". Why should they? They come here to make money for themselves, to live for themselves, and to leave when things don't go right. Otherwise they won't be foreigners, would they? They'd would have traded in their foreign citizenship for Singapore's. But our government is an optimistic lot, and they think they can hook these 2.5 million foreigners, hook, line and sinker, to support the old folks in Singapore, willingly or unwillingly.
The optimism expressed in the White Paper goes beyond belief. And given that the current government has messed up the triumvirate policies on foreign workers, transport and housing in the past ten years, it doesn't give me any confidence in the robustness of the policy proposals. The White Paper would likely turn out to be largely a work of fiction.
Monday, June 13, 2011
Almost Numero Uno
Wow, Singapore will overtake Las Vegas as the world's second largest gambling den in terms of gambling, err... gaming revenues this year? And we thought that Singapore has only just started. Resorts World Sentosa only opened in 14 January last year, and Marina Bay Sands a little later on 27 April 2010, all slightly more than a year ago, and we are already #2, worldwide?
Singapore are known for many first, and best's. Best airport in the world, best airline (SIA), busiest Port, best paid government (excluding under-the-table shenanigans of politicians in some countries), first F-1 night race... Add to these Singapore's record speed in reaching #2. At slightly over a year, it is early days yet to supplant Macau's number 1 spot right now.
But not everyone in Singapore are necessarily happy about this dubious position. Behind this spectacular result lies many broken hearts, homes and businesses. What else do you think those numbers mean? And this also goes to show the big fat 'lie' when proponents in government, of gambling, pitched it as an Integrated Resort. Unfortunately, time has a way of making us forget a lot of things. Well, Marina Bay is not known for its Conventions, Suntec City, and even the grand old Raffles City are bettered used. Hotels? Any tourist agency worth its salt will direct customers to more location friendly hotels in the city, except if you are a gambler. And how much would the just opened Science Art Theatre have contributed to the overall revenues? I am not sure if it is even making money. Dining? Who dines there except the gamblers? The only non-gaming place worth going to, in Marina Bay is the SkyPark, and Universal Studios Theme Park in RWS.
So I am just one damned confused Singaporean what INTEGRATED really means.
Singapore are known for many first, and best's. Best airport in the world, best airline (SIA), busiest Port, best paid government (excluding under-the-table shenanigans of politicians in some countries), first F-1 night race... Add to these Singapore's record speed in reaching #2. At slightly over a year, it is early days yet to supplant Macau's number 1 spot right now.
But not everyone in Singapore are necessarily happy about this dubious position. Behind this spectacular result lies many broken hearts, homes and businesses. What else do you think those numbers mean? And this also goes to show the big fat 'lie' when proponents in government, of gambling, pitched it as an Integrated Resort. Unfortunately, time has a way of making us forget a lot of things. Well, Marina Bay is not known for its Conventions, Suntec City, and even the grand old Raffles City are bettered used. Hotels? Any tourist agency worth its salt will direct customers to more location friendly hotels in the city, except if you are a gambler. And how much would the just opened Science Art Theatre have contributed to the overall revenues? I am not sure if it is even making money. Dining? Who dines there except the gamblers? The only non-gaming place worth going to, in Marina Bay is the SkyPark, and Universal Studios Theme Park in RWS.
So I am just one damned confused Singaporean what INTEGRATED really means.
Saturday, March 05, 2011
Elect Them?
Wow, wow, and WOW! Senior Civil Servants in Singapore will be paid 8 months bonus for last year's stellar economic growth of 14 plus percent! And these include government ministers, who already receive million dollar annual pay packages. Do the math. As many have observed, even Barack Obama doesn't get paid this much to run the world's only superpower government. Well, ok, there are uncertainties in politics. One day you are a minister of such-and-such, and the next day you may be out on the streets, booted out by the electorate. But senior civil servants - the perm secs and all, they can pretty much stay around forever so long as they don't 'mess up'. And that's really the problem about them receiving such large bonuses. You get rewarded, hugely, for keeping the status quo! And my bonus with tax rebates and all annoiunced in the budget last month now looks a pittance in comparison!
Don't experiment. Don't fix anything which is not broken. Just don't do anything and you will get your bonus, and 8 months at that. How this is related to a stellar economic perrformance eludes me. And the local press, such as the Strait Times are trying too hard being apologists for the government. They deconstruct the 8 month figure to show that it is actually 3 or 4 months, citing that the 8 months is based on the basic pay amongst a total package that includes various other variable components. Well, it is either 8 months or it is 3 months. Why the need to deconstruct? To make it more palatable for the man in the street, who I surmise, is shocked at the quantum. But this is enshrined in the law, they would say. And it certainly is.
Which is why we need more good opposition minds in Parliament who can pour over legislation and prevent such madness from ever being instituted again, or at least make it much more difficult to do a 'walkover' by the government. Come on Singapore, we owe it to ourselves to make sure that the people's money is not frittered away by some senior civil servants on gourmet trips to France while the rest of us have to earn double incomes to service that 30-year mortage, send our children for tuition classes, pay the bills and, perhaps, keep the car. If Singapore is as resilient as it is for its leaders to be rewarded with 8 months bonus, a couple of fallen ministers does not matter, does it?
Let your votes count this year!
Don't experiment. Don't fix anything which is not broken. Just don't do anything and you will get your bonus, and 8 months at that. How this is related to a stellar economic perrformance eludes me. And the local press, such as the Strait Times are trying too hard being apologists for the government. They deconstruct the 8 month figure to show that it is actually 3 or 4 months, citing that the 8 months is based on the basic pay amongst a total package that includes various other variable components. Well, it is either 8 months or it is 3 months. Why the need to deconstruct? To make it more palatable for the man in the street, who I surmise, is shocked at the quantum. But this is enshrined in the law, they would say. And it certainly is.
Which is why we need more good opposition minds in Parliament who can pour over legislation and prevent such madness from ever being instituted again, or at least make it much more difficult to do a 'walkover' by the government. Come on Singapore, we owe it to ourselves to make sure that the people's money is not frittered away by some senior civil servants on gourmet trips to France while the rest of us have to earn double incomes to service that 30-year mortage, send our children for tuition classes, pay the bills and, perhaps, keep the car. If Singapore is as resilient as it is for its leaders to be rewarded with 8 months bonus, a couple of fallen ministers does not matter, does it?
Let your votes count this year!
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
Atypically Singapore
Yet there are some things that happens in Singapore and nowhere else in the world. You see, Singapore is an eat-out nation. People tend to finish their work day after 6 and after factoring in the traveling time, reach home around 7, or later. So in a family where both husband and wife work, there just isn't the time to whip up a home-cooked meal. Eating out during the weekdays is fairly common, so anyone in Singapore for the first time always remark that Singapore is a food paradise. Paradise to them, but a necessity for the locals, really.
Thus when it was reported that a new food centre was being built in Bedok (yeah...that Eastern Revamp again) to replace the existing one, it wasn't really new. What was interesting is what existing stall operators were concerned about.Some asked that when (not "if") they moved over to the new food centre, they'd be charged higher rentals,. This is something that happens all the time with spanking new facilities. One operator was quoted as saying "We don't want to raise our food prices because of the rent...this is a place for HDB Heartlanders to have their three meals" (Sunday Times, 16 Jan 2010 page 2). Funny this. You would think that these businesses are acting out of character. As a business, isn't it their concern to bring in a profit? They shouldn't need to care if rentals go up because they can then justifiably charge more to sustain their margins. Let the government worry about the people's complaints. Yet in Singapore, the government always chorus that market prices should dictate and reflect the true cost of doing business. So if rentals go up, so be it, they'd say. There is very little by way of effort to keep the old prices, as far as the government goes. New means progress, Progress comes at a higher price. That's the mantra that always gets chanted. In this instance, you'd wonder who better represents the needs of the residents - the food operators or the government?
The tender system is probably one of the culprits behind the incessant rise of prices. We do not yet know if the NEA or private developer is building this new place. If a private developer comes in, the result is a foregone conclusion. Look at the development of Kopitiam Square in Sengkang. From the tender exercise, the winning bid was easily close to a quarter million dollars more than the second highest bid. As a result, food prices must be charged at a level that can sustain this cost. In other words, higher prices must be charged. We ask who benefits from all these and you are right - the government coffers. Now isn't that a good thing, since this means the government can dish out more goodies come the year end, or during budget time? But that's the point. They get to decide how to spend that money, and in the process either arm-twist or make people beholden to them. Now isn't that dandy? Using your money to fulfill their own purposes?
Before I get gazetted, let me just say that if you do not agree with me, you can always leave a comment - the very policy advocated by the Singapore government - the right of reply.
And no, I do not receive a single cent from my mother for blogging, much less from foreigners.
Thus when it was reported that a new food centre was being built in Bedok (yeah...that Eastern Revamp again) to replace the existing one, it wasn't really new. What was interesting is what existing stall operators were concerned about.Some asked that when (not "if") they moved over to the new food centre, they'd be charged higher rentals,. This is something that happens all the time with spanking new facilities. One operator was quoted as saying "We don't want to raise our food prices because of the rent...this is a place for HDB Heartlanders to have their three meals" (Sunday Times, 16 Jan 2010 page 2). Funny this. You would think that these businesses are acting out of character. As a business, isn't it their concern to bring in a profit? They shouldn't need to care if rentals go up because they can then justifiably charge more to sustain their margins. Let the government worry about the people's complaints. Yet in Singapore, the government always chorus that market prices should dictate and reflect the true cost of doing business. So if rentals go up, so be it, they'd say. There is very little by way of effort to keep the old prices, as far as the government goes. New means progress, Progress comes at a higher price. That's the mantra that always gets chanted. In this instance, you'd wonder who better represents the needs of the residents - the food operators or the government?
The tender system is probably one of the culprits behind the incessant rise of prices. We do not yet know if the NEA or private developer is building this new place. If a private developer comes in, the result is a foregone conclusion. Look at the development of Kopitiam Square in Sengkang. From the tender exercise, the winning bid was easily close to a quarter million dollars more than the second highest bid. As a result, food prices must be charged at a level that can sustain this cost. In other words, higher prices must be charged. We ask who benefits from all these and you are right - the government coffers. Now isn't that a good thing, since this means the government can dish out more goodies come the year end, or during budget time? But that's the point. They get to decide how to spend that money, and in the process either arm-twist or make people beholden to them. Now isn't that dandy? Using your money to fulfill their own purposes?
Before I get gazetted, let me just say that if you do not agree with me, you can always leave a comment - the very policy advocated by the Singapore government - the right of reply.
And no, I do not receive a single cent from my mother for blogging, much less from foreigners.
Monday, April 12, 2010
Hot Kopi
From what I saw yesterday, the businesses situated in Kopitiam Square (KS) aren't doing that great. Already I am seeing 'For Rent' signs going up in no less than 8 stalls that have recently been vacated. Somebody told me that whereas there were 3 chicken-rice stalls 2 months ago, it has been reduced to one now. And there used to be 2 roti-prata stalls. One announced that it was moving its stall to another part of KS, and that it will resume operations on 1 April 2010. It is now 11 April, and it is still not open, leading one to wonder if it is not an April Fool's Day joke. It is only slightly over 3 months since KS first opened for business with much fanfare back in December 2009. One of the complaints about that place is it is hot hot and hot. Add in the natural humidity of our weather and you feel you are in a gym working out instead of eating out.
It isn't that Kopitiam is not doing anything about this problem, it seems. I visited KS this morning and saw a number of un-assembled giant stand fans in one of the vacated stalls. I assume that they are meant for diners in the Square, to help blow away the heat and humidity. Singapore has been experiencing very hot weather of late and these fans will be a relief, though I wonder how diners will feel eating and having a blow-dry all at the same time. Maybe Singaporean diners can view this as value-for-their-money?
I suspect that stall holders are giving up their leases prematurely or trying to rent out their spaces due to the possibility that they cannot make enough money to cover the high rents they must undoubtedly have signed onto. Kopitiam has to pay half a million dollars every month to the government, who are the landlords of the piece of land KS is sitting on, so they can only reduce rental so much before they start to bleed cash themselves, if they have not already started bleeding, i.e.
KS has turned out to be quite a good place to have around Sengkang, and I would hate to see it becoming a shell of a foodcourt. Fortunately, the wet market appears to be doing well. At least the number of these business occupants appear to have increased, and the wet market looking really like a wet market. And the dry good shops are still there - a bonus for shoppers visiting this place. Fortunately they haven't closed, yet. Well, lets see if the giant fans will save the place.
It isn't that Kopitiam is not doing anything about this problem, it seems. I visited KS this morning and saw a number of un-assembled giant stand fans in one of the vacated stalls. I assume that they are meant for diners in the Square, to help blow away the heat and humidity. Singapore has been experiencing very hot weather of late and these fans will be a relief, though I wonder how diners will feel eating and having a blow-dry all at the same time. Maybe Singaporean diners can view this as value-for-their-money?
I suspect that stall holders are giving up their leases prematurely or trying to rent out their spaces due to the possibility that they cannot make enough money to cover the high rents they must undoubtedly have signed onto. Kopitiam has to pay half a million dollars every month to the government, who are the landlords of the piece of land KS is sitting on, so they can only reduce rental so much before they start to bleed cash themselves, if they have not already started bleeding, i.e.
KS has turned out to be quite a good place to have around Sengkang, and I would hate to see it becoming a shell of a foodcourt. Fortunately, the wet market appears to be doing well. At least the number of these business occupants appear to have increased, and the wet market looking really like a wet market. And the dry good shops are still there - a bonus for shoppers visiting this place. Fortunately they haven't closed, yet. Well, lets see if the giant fans will save the place.
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Kopi same
Kopitiam, the operator of cooked food establishments under the Kopitiam label opened its latest food establishment - the Sengkang Market and Food Centre (this is HDB's original label for the place) situated at a corner of Sengkang Square in the northeast corner of the island. It is a much anticipated opening because it promised the availability of a wet market - something that, if we believe what we read in the press, people are clamouring for. And, in spite of running the largest cooked food centre among tenants on the 4th level of Compass Point, it went ahead and bid $500,100 a month for the new Sengkang Market and Food Centre. Its closest rival bid, from Sembawang New Market, was $256,788, almost a quarter of a million less, making Kopitiam look like either like a fool, or desperate, or greedy, or all of them, i.e. desperate greedy fool.
Of course, to recoup that investment, the majority of the floor area is devoted to cooked food stalls. The much anticipated wet market takes up only about a fifth of the total floor area in this food establishment - something quite different from what the tender document called for. Clearly the wet market is a sideshow, probably not able to financially sustain the sky-high rental Kopitiam has to pay the government each month. I suppose the cook food stall business is a very profitable one. The prices of the food items are slightly lower than equivalent food stalls situated just across the road in Compass Point. But when we compensate for the lack of air-condition, this newest food centre's prices comes up to roughly the same as the air-conditioned one. The food assortment is more or less the same. There are many more cooked food stalls (for example, there are 3 stalls selling chicken rice). The convenience factor cannot be matched both for customers and for Kopitiam though. This is because it can operate for longer hours compared to the one in the shopping mall, and it can collect parking fees too. So I suppose it'll be profitable for Kopitiam though some cooked food stall operators in Kopitiam's Compass Point location have expressed the concern of cannibalisation of their businesses. But this is of no concern to Kopitiam because they will collect the same rents at both places anyway.
What is my feeling about this food centre? For one, I am underwhelmed. Really, for the real estate it occupies, it is more of the same thing,which makes Sengkang Square that much less attractive. Its single floor design is really a waste of land. And for the excitement it evoked when a wet market was first announced, the actual space devoted to it is really insignificant and a let down of sorts. I get the feeling that wet markets are not in fact all that popular, not what a small but vocal minority makes them out to be. Kopitiam realises this and probably did the right thing by relegating it to a sideshow.
I also don't like the fact that Kopitiam is operating major food establishments on both sides of the road. What benefit can consumers look forward to in terms of lower food prices, better customer service and more responsive operators? Zilch, numero zero, ling dan. Nope, life has not improved with this latest of commercial ventures blessed by no less than the government. One is left to rue what could have been if the operator with the second best bid had secured the contract to operate this business. The government should reflect on its 'it is a commercial decision' mentality. The government's business is to help the people lower cost of living, and not to improve the bottom line of businesses, particularly when it concerns what should have been a lower cost of eating and going to the market, given its budget/no-frills design.
Of course, to recoup that investment, the majority of the floor area is devoted to cooked food stalls. The much anticipated wet market takes up only about a fifth of the total floor area in this food establishment - something quite different from what the tender document called for. Clearly the wet market is a sideshow, probably not able to financially sustain the sky-high rental Kopitiam has to pay the government each month. I suppose the cook food stall business is a very profitable one. The prices of the food items are slightly lower than equivalent food stalls situated just across the road in Compass Point. But when we compensate for the lack of air-condition, this newest food centre's prices comes up to roughly the same as the air-conditioned one. The food assortment is more or less the same. There are many more cooked food stalls (for example, there are 3 stalls selling chicken rice). The convenience factor cannot be matched both for customers and for Kopitiam though. This is because it can operate for longer hours compared to the one in the shopping mall, and it can collect parking fees too. So I suppose it'll be profitable for Kopitiam though some cooked food stall operators in Kopitiam's Compass Point location have expressed the concern of cannibalisation of their businesses. But this is of no concern to Kopitiam because they will collect the same rents at both places anyway.
What is my feeling about this food centre? For one, I am underwhelmed. Really, for the real estate it occupies, it is more of the same thing,which makes Sengkang Square that much less attractive. Its single floor design is really a waste of land. And for the excitement it evoked when a wet market was first announced, the actual space devoted to it is really insignificant and a let down of sorts. I get the feeling that wet markets are not in fact all that popular, not what a small but vocal minority makes them out to be. Kopitiam realises this and probably did the right thing by relegating it to a sideshow.
I also don't like the fact that Kopitiam is operating major food establishments on both sides of the road. What benefit can consumers look forward to in terms of lower food prices, better customer service and more responsive operators? Zilch, numero zero, ling dan. Nope, life has not improved with this latest of commercial ventures blessed by no less than the government. One is left to rue what could have been if the operator with the second best bid had secured the contract to operate this business. The government should reflect on its 'it is a commercial decision' mentality. The government's business is to help the people lower cost of living, and not to improve the bottom line of businesses, particularly when it concerns what should have been a lower cost of eating and going to the market, given its budget/no-frills design.
 |
| Kopitiam Sengkang |
Monday, December 21, 2009
That Lie
Marina Bay Sands Singapore is supposed to have opened its doors for business this month. That was the original plan, but we all know that plans can change, and in the case of the Marina Bay Sands Singapore (aka Hotel and Casino Resort), the revised opening date is some time in April 2010 though some say that June 2010 is a more realistic date.
April, when April Fools' day falls, is probably not an ideal month to open a Casino, from the gamblers' perspective. But it'll probably be roaring business of a casino though because gamblers are by nature risk takers, fools or not. These revision in schedules show up the lie in the whole Integrated Resort (IR) message. When Singapore went ahead with setting up not one but two casinos, the government insisted that it wasn't casinos per se, but an integration of various entertainment and convention businesses (MICE) that were on the cards, that Singapore isn't transforming itself into a Las Vegas of the East. Casinos were just to be a small part of the whole development. But the latest developments (or probably non-developments) has given the lie to this claim.
When push comes to shove, and it is time for payback. the only most immediately profitable business that must be opened first is the casino. So come April or June next year, or whatever month it eventually opens, the casino business must precede all others. The business / conventions / meeting / entertainment events? Well, they are not Marina Bay Sands' priority, really. From recouping the money point of view (more than S$5 Billion), the casino business is the one and only bet on the table, never mind what the government says about having 50% of the other businesses in place as a condition for the casinos to start operations. But then, starting the casino first makes sense. Nobody would want to have a major meeting event there, or go shopping, and least of all, go there for a stroll when half of the place is still under construction. The dust and dirt will be an instant turnoff. Orchard Road will still be a cooler place to go to, in more ways than one. But gambling? Hey the dirt doesn't matter. When gambling can take place in a back alley as much as it can in a swanky hotel, it is the only sensible thing to do - take the money and run.
So if we want to call a spade a spade, we should just admit that Singapore is close to becoming the betting capital of this part of the world. The rest are just sideshows. The problem is, with the government's liberal policies on immigration, will it attract the 'right' people to this island in the long run? It would appear that climate change is the least of our worries.
April, when April Fools' day falls, is probably not an ideal month to open a Casino, from the gamblers' perspective. But it'll probably be roaring business of a casino though because gamblers are by nature risk takers, fools or not. These revision in schedules show up the lie in the whole Integrated Resort (IR) message. When Singapore went ahead with setting up not one but two casinos, the government insisted that it wasn't casinos per se, but an integration of various entertainment and convention businesses (MICE) that were on the cards, that Singapore isn't transforming itself into a Las Vegas of the East. Casinos were just to be a small part of the whole development. But the latest developments (or probably non-developments) has given the lie to this claim.
When push comes to shove, and it is time for payback. the only most immediately profitable business that must be opened first is the casino. So come April or June next year, or whatever month it eventually opens, the casino business must precede all others. The business / conventions / meeting / entertainment events? Well, they are not Marina Bay Sands' priority, really. From recouping the money point of view (more than S$5 Billion), the casino business is the one and only bet on the table, never mind what the government says about having 50% of the other businesses in place as a condition for the casinos to start operations. But then, starting the casino first makes sense. Nobody would want to have a major meeting event there, or go shopping, and least of all, go there for a stroll when half of the place is still under construction. The dust and dirt will be an instant turnoff. Orchard Road will still be a cooler place to go to, in more ways than one. But gambling? Hey the dirt doesn't matter. When gambling can take place in a back alley as much as it can in a swanky hotel, it is the only sensible thing to do - take the money and run.
So if we want to call a spade a spade, we should just admit that Singapore is close to becoming the betting capital of this part of the world. The rest are just sideshows. The problem is, with the government's liberal policies on immigration, will it attract the 'right' people to this island in the long run? It would appear that climate change is the least of our worries.
Saturday, October 24, 2009
Cheap cheap
Everyone, I suppose, in Singapore knows that medicine across the Causeway is cheaper, just like food and petrol. So it is natural that Singaporeans exit Singapore in droves during weekends to stretch their feet and their Singapore Dollar. Over the years, however, Johor has become less of a shopper's paradise for Singaporeans. For some time now, the prices in their shopping malls aren't too different from what you can get back in Singapore.
Petrol is still a bargain, but the Singapore government does its best to 'pursuade' Singaporeans to 'buy Singapore'. The 3 Qtr tank rule is still there. However, of late, the powers that be appears to have changed their minds. For example, Health Minister Khaw Boon Wan has famously said (in February 2009) that Singaporeans can consider putting their elderly parents in Nursing Homes in Johore. Now, Salma Khalik, ST's Health Correspondent (who reported on the Johore Nursing Home story earlier this year for the same paper) is suggesting that Singaporeans stretch their dollar by getting vaccination jabs (against streptococcus pneumoniae bacteria) in Malaysia simply because it costs much less there than in Singapore. Although Mr Khaw's name is missing in this opinion piece, it is pretty much the same point that Mr Khaw was making - there are choices for cheaper medicine, and Singaporean's should avail themselves of it, never mind that you can't avail yourself of more than a quarter tank of cheaper petrol over there. I suppose the petrol is not Mr Khaw's department. The Transport Minister, Mr Raymond Lim doesn't seem to have heard, nor is willing to hear, or if heard, is not willing to have a change of heart about Singaporeans having the choice of spending less on petrol.
By now, everybody knows that medicine in Singapore isn't cheap. That is common knowledge, really. There is a perception that, on the whole, medicine is good in Singapore. That's the premium you have to pay. But now Ms Khalik is suggesting (see Straits Time, 23 October 2009, page A2) that medicine in Malaysia, as far as vaccinations go, is just as good, you wonder why you have to continue to pay a premium in Singapore? It would appear that not only do our businesses price themselves out of the market that lead to the inevitable recessionary cycle, we, the citizens of Singapore, also get priced out of our products like medicine, which isn't exactly optional in our lives. And who are setting the prices in the medical sector in Singapore? Go figure.
I suppose we have to thank Ms Khalik for her money-saving tip, but we would also be grateful if somebody were to talk to Minister Raymond Lim about that petrol thingy.
Petrol is still a bargain, but the Singapore government does its best to 'pursuade' Singaporeans to 'buy Singapore'. The 3 Qtr tank rule is still there. However, of late, the powers that be appears to have changed their minds. For example, Health Minister Khaw Boon Wan has famously said (in February 2009) that Singaporeans can consider putting their elderly parents in Nursing Homes in Johore. Now, Salma Khalik, ST's Health Correspondent (who reported on the Johore Nursing Home story earlier this year for the same paper) is suggesting that Singaporeans stretch their dollar by getting vaccination jabs (against streptococcus pneumoniae bacteria) in Malaysia simply because it costs much less there than in Singapore. Although Mr Khaw's name is missing in this opinion piece, it is pretty much the same point that Mr Khaw was making - there are choices for cheaper medicine, and Singaporean's should avail themselves of it, never mind that you can't avail yourself of more than a quarter tank of cheaper petrol over there. I suppose the petrol is not Mr Khaw's department. The Transport Minister, Mr Raymond Lim doesn't seem to have heard, nor is willing to hear, or if heard, is not willing to have a change of heart about Singaporeans having the choice of spending less on petrol.
By now, everybody knows that medicine in Singapore isn't cheap. That is common knowledge, really. There is a perception that, on the whole, medicine is good in Singapore. That's the premium you have to pay. But now Ms Khalik is suggesting (see Straits Time, 23 October 2009, page A2) that medicine in Malaysia, as far as vaccinations go, is just as good, you wonder why you have to continue to pay a premium in Singapore? It would appear that not only do our businesses price themselves out of the market that lead to the inevitable recessionary cycle, we, the citizens of Singapore, also get priced out of our products like medicine, which isn't exactly optional in our lives. And who are setting the prices in the medical sector in Singapore? Go figure.
I suppose we have to thank Ms Khalik for her money-saving tip, but we would also be grateful if somebody were to talk to Minister Raymond Lim about that petrol thingy.
Monday, April 13, 2009
Paradox of recession
Nothing is predictable in Singapore nowadays, or at least, some things do not work according to the script.
Consider the opening of the newest shopping mall, Tampines 1, in the middle of one of the deepest recessions in Singapore. Retailers and even the Retailers' Associations have, in the recent past, asked the government for help in cutting costs, such as reducing the GST from 7% to 5%. The government said no. And after witnessing Tampines 1, who can blame them?
Tampines 1 sits on the site where Sogo was. It opened last week, to throngs of people. If there is one thing you can trust Singaporeans to do, it is shopping at the latest malls. I avoided the mall (yea, I am an atypical Singaporean) on its opening day, as well as the weekend, for obvious reasons. I thought today, Monday, would be a good day to visit. I was wrong. The crowd at this Mall on Monday afternoon is nothing like a weekday crowd. Everybody on the island seem to be there, from the children to the teenagers to the adults in businesses and casual wear to the aunties and uncles, all of them were there. I can begin to understand the gridlock that shoppers were faced with last weekend at this mall.
The Japanese retailer chain, Uniqlo, the newest new thing, was shuttered, not because there weren't any customers. Yes, it had drawn down its shutters, but a long queue of would-be customers were lining up just outside, ready to rush in when the shutters come up again. How any retailer would envy at this state of affairs. The mall is much bigger than I'd imagine it to be because I used to visit the old Sogo quite often before it shut. I could imagine the retailers at Tampines Mall and Century Square swatting flies all day long. The crowd was over the other side of the MRT station - in Tampines 1, stupid!
People just came, like bees to flowers, except that visitors came to dump their money into this newest of new places whereas bees would suck dry the nectar from the flowers. Come to think of it, that's what the shoppers were doing - sucking dry the merchandise using their not-so-hard-to-part money. Hey there's a recession going on, if you've forgotten. But then again, it should be like this if one wants to break the spiraling cycle of thrift, which has the effect of choking economic activity thereby worsening the recession.
My one complaint is the food sold at Kapitan, the Kopitiam food court located at the 4th level. Let me rephrase that. My complaint lies with one food stall in Kapitan, the stall that sold char siew rice. When my companion put the plate of char siew rice on the table, the stranger sitting next to me exclaimed at the portion - it was very small indeed. This is the first time that a total stranger has ever made such a remark. Singaporeans tend to be a reserve lot. They'd usually just whisper among their own group of friends. So you can imagine how small the portion really was to elicit such an unbridled comment! But this takes the cake - it costs $3.80! Cough cough cough... And in case you were wondering, there is nothing out of the ordinary about the rice, the char siew, the cumcumber and the sauce. In fact, you could getting better char siew rice at $2 elsewhere.
I thought, if this is how much things will cost, I shuddered to think how high prices will be at the planned wet market in Sengkang Square when it goes into operation. Kopitiam won the bid to build and operate it just 2 weeks ago. And their bid was 2 times the next highest bid. There may be some red faces in Kopitiam right now, but I think they will have the last laugh because they know they can recoup this exorbitant investment quite quickly. That's because people will still flock to this market even if it prices are higher. The reason is very simple - there just isn't anywhere that can compete with the convenient location of this planned wet market. This lack of competition is something that HDB overlooked when it pretended to understand how free markets (there is no effective competition) worked. Of course, there have been complaints and dismay expressed by heartlanders of the prospect of having yet to pay more. The initial euphoria of having a wet market at your doorstep is turning to disillusionment. At the end of the day, the ward's MP and the HDB will be the ones with red faces.
This is living in Singapore today - all full of irony and contradictions.
Consider the opening of the newest shopping mall, Tampines 1, in the middle of one of the deepest recessions in Singapore. Retailers and even the Retailers' Associations have, in the recent past, asked the government for help in cutting costs, such as reducing the GST from 7% to 5%. The government said no. And after witnessing Tampines 1, who can blame them?
Tampines 1 sits on the site where Sogo was. It opened last week, to throngs of people. If there is one thing you can trust Singaporeans to do, it is shopping at the latest malls. I avoided the mall (yea, I am an atypical Singaporean) on its opening day, as well as the weekend, for obvious reasons. I thought today, Monday, would be a good day to visit. I was wrong. The crowd at this Mall on Monday afternoon is nothing like a weekday crowd. Everybody on the island seem to be there, from the children to the teenagers to the adults in businesses and casual wear to the aunties and uncles, all of them were there. I can begin to understand the gridlock that shoppers were faced with last weekend at this mall.
The Japanese retailer chain, Uniqlo, the newest new thing, was shuttered, not because there weren't any customers. Yes, it had drawn down its shutters, but a long queue of would-be customers were lining up just outside, ready to rush in when the shutters come up again. How any retailer would envy at this state of affairs. The mall is much bigger than I'd imagine it to be because I used to visit the old Sogo quite often before it shut. I could imagine the retailers at Tampines Mall and Century Square swatting flies all day long. The crowd was over the other side of the MRT station - in Tampines 1, stupid!
People just came, like bees to flowers, except that visitors came to dump their money into this newest of new places whereas bees would suck dry the nectar from the flowers. Come to think of it, that's what the shoppers were doing - sucking dry the merchandise using their not-so-hard-to-part money. Hey there's a recession going on, if you've forgotten. But then again, it should be like this if one wants to break the spiraling cycle of thrift, which has the effect of choking economic activity thereby worsening the recession.
My one complaint is the food sold at Kapitan, the Kopitiam food court located at the 4th level. Let me rephrase that. My complaint lies with one food stall in Kapitan, the stall that sold char siew rice. When my companion put the plate of char siew rice on the table, the stranger sitting next to me exclaimed at the portion - it was very small indeed. This is the first time that a total stranger has ever made such a remark. Singaporeans tend to be a reserve lot. They'd usually just whisper among their own group of friends. So you can imagine how small the portion really was to elicit such an unbridled comment! But this takes the cake - it costs $3.80! Cough cough cough... And in case you were wondering, there is nothing out of the ordinary about the rice, the char siew, the cumcumber and the sauce. In fact, you could getting better char siew rice at $2 elsewhere.
I thought, if this is how much things will cost, I shuddered to think how high prices will be at the planned wet market in Sengkang Square when it goes into operation. Kopitiam won the bid to build and operate it just 2 weeks ago. And their bid was 2 times the next highest bid. There may be some red faces in Kopitiam right now, but I think they will have the last laugh because they know they can recoup this exorbitant investment quite quickly. That's because people will still flock to this market even if it prices are higher. The reason is very simple - there just isn't anywhere that can compete with the convenient location of this planned wet market. This lack of competition is something that HDB overlooked when it pretended to understand how free markets (there is no effective competition) worked. Of course, there have been complaints and dismay expressed by heartlanders of the prospect of having yet to pay more. The initial euphoria of having a wet market at your doorstep is turning to disillusionment. At the end of the day, the ward's MP and the HDB will be the ones with red faces.
This is living in Singapore today - all full of irony and contradictions.
Monday, March 23, 2009
Unkind Cut
Firing a staff is never ever easy to do. I have only ever fired 2 people in my working life so far. The first one, being the first one, I didn't handle well at all. The second one I left it to my superiors, because the case involved theft.
Because I messed up the first one, the whole department turned against me. Before, they had been more than kind to me, leaving me little things on my table, like some food, for me to enjoy. I also always joined them for lunch, where lunch was in the factory as many did not want to venture the long distance to the nearest foodstall. So to all intents and purposes, I had a good thing going with my department. Until my superior called me in and told me about the bad times and that I should 'release' one staff from my department. Who it was going to be he left up to me to decide. Yeah, he wasn't going to hold the blood soaked knife, I had been volunteered to do it.
The choice was a difficult one since all of them had been as hardworking as the other. Some were absolutely essential as they operated key systems. Thinking back, I couldn't work out rationally who should go. It was entirely arbitrary, really. There wasn't an issue about favouritism. Call it a roll of the dice if you would. One went. She wasn't shown the door immediately. She was informed, and during the notice period, I notice knife-edged stares everyday I showed up for work. It was uncomfortable, to say the least.
In restrospect, I should have protected my staff more. And even if a staff had to be fired, I should have shown more concern about the staff's future plans. And I should have talked to the rest of the department to seek their understanding and not kept quiet about it all. It was the worst way to release a staff, particularly one who has worked there for more than 10 years.
Needless to say, I never ate with them anymore. I left voluntarily not long after. But this incident still haunts me to this day. I hope that people do not repeat my mistakes. In this retrenchment 'season', let the one in charge show greater compassion and sensitivity. It's somebody's life, livelihood and family we are talking about.
See
10 ways to be a good manager during recessions
Gilbert Goh's Letter in Today's (23 Marh 09) Voices section (page 18)
Because I messed up the first one, the whole department turned against me. Before, they had been more than kind to me, leaving me little things on my table, like some food, for me to enjoy. I also always joined them for lunch, where lunch was in the factory as many did not want to venture the long distance to the nearest foodstall. So to all intents and purposes, I had a good thing going with my department. Until my superior called me in and told me about the bad times and that I should 'release' one staff from my department. Who it was going to be he left up to me to decide. Yeah, he wasn't going to hold the blood soaked knife, I had been volunteered to do it.
The choice was a difficult one since all of them had been as hardworking as the other. Some were absolutely essential as they operated key systems. Thinking back, I couldn't work out rationally who should go. It was entirely arbitrary, really. There wasn't an issue about favouritism. Call it a roll of the dice if you would. One went. She wasn't shown the door immediately. She was informed, and during the notice period, I notice knife-edged stares everyday I showed up for work. It was uncomfortable, to say the least.
In restrospect, I should have protected my staff more. And even if a staff had to be fired, I should have shown more concern about the staff's future plans. And I should have talked to the rest of the department to seek their understanding and not kept quiet about it all. It was the worst way to release a staff, particularly one who has worked there for more than 10 years.
Needless to say, I never ate with them anymore. I left voluntarily not long after. But this incident still haunts me to this day. I hope that people do not repeat my mistakes. In this retrenchment 'season', let the one in charge show greater compassion and sensitivity. It's somebody's life, livelihood and family we are talking about.
See
10 ways to be a good manager during recessions
Gilbert Goh's Letter in Today's (23 Marh 09) Voices section (page 18)
Saturday, February 28, 2009
Law of wealth
The current economic recession, probably the worst that Singapore has ever seen, may be a blessing in disguise. For too long, Singaporeans have had it too good, and expecting that the good times will roll on and on - strong economic growth, high wages, sky-high apartments (of the $$$ kind) and easy credit through very very low interest rates.
I have lived long enough to know that this happy state of affairs cannot last long. That it has done so came as a bit of a surprise to me. Of course, there was the recession in 2003 - largely caused by the SARS outbreak, so it was not representative of typical economic cycles. The same can be said of the internet boom/bust and even the Asian Financial Crisis back in 1997. All of these were largely localised. For the connected globalised economy, the real markets were still there. So it would appear that globalisation would smoothen these economic boom-bust cycles, leveling the fluctuations that are characteristic of capitalist economies.
We got drunk on globablisation, we became careless with our money, and like the US consumers, we began to go into debt thinking that we will always have that steady stream of income to cover ourselves. Debt financing, sophisticated people call them. Even the Singapore government was bullish about this, talking about the desirability of developing a debt market as if it was the next best formula for pushing the economy to ever greater heights.
Now, I am not saying that debt financing is all wrong. Most businesses depend on a careful balance of cash flows to survive and many go into debt to expand, for example, listing on the stock market. But when everyone is doing it, including the clueless sub-prime people in the US, where debt is miraculously converted into interest-baring assets, which are then resold as it they were gold, ad-nauseam no less, with no accountability and no tomorrow (because the people who sell these get their money today -why worry about accountability some time down the future?), we end up with what the world is lamenting but can't do much without - toxic assets. These 'assets' which came out of the ingenuity of the human mind - to create something out of nothing. Ironically, every banker is now holding a lot of these toxic assets and none of them dares to move on them.
The problem is, they forgot that only God can create something out of nothing. We mortal souls? They again forgot about Isaac Newton and the greatest physicists that came after. They taught that matter cannot be created nor destroyed. But I suppose those PhDs who went into Financial Engineering - they abandoned Physics and its immutable laws. They did not look at 'wealth' as matter, so you could create new wealth without limits.
When you tinker with matter, you can save mankind or blow up the whole world. Is it any surprise that when you do the same with numbers, you can end up destroying the world too?
God help us all.
Image: morguefile.com. Author: clarita
I have lived long enough to know that this happy state of affairs cannot last long. That it has done so came as a bit of a surprise to me. Of course, there was the recession in 2003 - largely caused by the SARS outbreak, so it was not representative of typical economic cycles. The same can be said of the internet boom/bust and even the Asian Financial Crisis back in 1997. All of these were largely localised. For the connected globalised economy, the real markets were still there. So it would appear that globalisation would smoothen these economic boom-bust cycles, leveling the fluctuations that are characteristic of capitalist economies.
We got drunk on globablisation, we became careless with our money, and like the US consumers, we began to go into debt thinking that we will always have that steady stream of income to cover ourselves. Debt financing, sophisticated people call them. Even the Singapore government was bullish about this, talking about the desirability of developing a debt market as if it was the next best formula for pushing the economy to ever greater heights.
Now, I am not saying that debt financing is all wrong. Most businesses depend on a careful balance of cash flows to survive and many go into debt to expand, for example, listing on the stock market. But when everyone is doing it, including the clueless sub-prime people in the US, where debt is miraculously converted into interest-baring assets, which are then resold as it they were gold, ad-nauseam no less, with no accountability and no tomorrow (because the people who sell these get their money today -why worry about accountability some time down the future?), we end up with what the world is lamenting but can't do much without - toxic assets. These 'assets' which came out of the ingenuity of the human mind - to create something out of nothing. Ironically, every banker is now holding a lot of these toxic assets and none of them dares to move on them.
The problem is, they forgot that only God can create something out of nothing. We mortal souls? They again forgot about Isaac Newton and the greatest physicists that came after. They taught that matter cannot be created nor destroyed. But I suppose those PhDs who went into Financial Engineering - they abandoned Physics and its immutable laws. They did not look at 'wealth' as matter, so you could create new wealth without limits.
When you tinker with matter, you can save mankind or blow up the whole world. Is it any surprise that when you do the same with numbers, you can end up destroying the world too?
God help us all.
Image: morguefile.com. Author: clarita
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
The Ox cometh
Chinese New Year has come and the first 2 days of celebrations have past without your knowing it. In this New Year celebrations, it has been the same old routine, the obligatory CNY eve dinner, the visiting, the eating. Yes, the visiting too. It appears that for some relatives, it is a once a year affair meeting up, unlike friends whom we meet and talk with the whole year around.
But meeting them, the relatives, have been a good thing, I wonder, though, if our meeting will be the last. Why so morose in a time of celebration? The inevitable. Within the last year, I have lost a dear relative, who was the architect of my parents' meeting and eventual union. In a way, I am here today because of her. But she was over 90, and she died peacefully in her sleep, that was a relief. There are those who hang to to dear life, when letting go would be so much better. So I had one less person to visit this. I visited another nonagenarian yesterday, an in-law. She seemed less alert than when I last saw her, no prizes for guessing, one year ago. But she could still recognise me, if barely, and one had to go near her to make oneself heard. But otherwise, she is in relative good health, which is what I wished for everyone I visited this CNY. No, not the wealth and good fortune, not the wish for the presence of the God of Fortune in the New Year, it had all got to be about good health. Priorities and realities, they change as you grow older. Perhaps that is why we grow wiser too. Oh to reminisce the fun and folly of youth, days gone by, never to come again.
We wish the best to all the children and send them along their way with a little money during these times. We genuinely wish them the best of life, good fortune, a life in excess (not of excess), excelling in school and, yes, health in their young lives. Even the young die prematurely, in the prime of their lives. We must ever be mindful of that. The young, some of them act and behave like there is no tomorrow. They speed down the expressways after having imbibed a few glasses, devil may care to claim their souls that very day. Many youth puff their way into addiction, thinking that they can put the stick down some time down the road. It rarely works out that way. I know a friend, a good man, who told me that, try as he might, he could never stop smoking. His regret comes too late. He is addicted till the day he breaths his last.
Why such depressing thoughts, this CNY? Perhaps the old look back with a sense of "seen that, done that" 20/20 vision. For all the good wishes over the years, there have been hard times. And 2009 promises to be the hardest of them all, the mother of all depression, they say. Talk is about possible loss of jobs - not because the company will retrench, but that the company will simply disappear, post CNY. People are on edge. It is part of the conversation this CNY. Everyone, it seems knows someone who has such worries on their minds.
But we remind ourselves that we have to be resilient, as the expansionary Government Budget 2009 suggests. More than at any other time, these people already have a plan B, ironically just waiting for that opportune time to put action to words. As the New Year slips into history, we face the inevitable tomorrow.
Happy Lunar New Year!
But meeting them, the relatives, have been a good thing, I wonder, though, if our meeting will be the last. Why so morose in a time of celebration? The inevitable. Within the last year, I have lost a dear relative, who was the architect of my parents' meeting and eventual union. In a way, I am here today because of her. But she was over 90, and she died peacefully in her sleep, that was a relief. There are those who hang to to dear life, when letting go would be so much better. So I had one less person to visit this. I visited another nonagenarian yesterday, an in-law. She seemed less alert than when I last saw her, no prizes for guessing, one year ago. But she could still recognise me, if barely, and one had to go near her to make oneself heard. But otherwise, she is in relative good health, which is what I wished for everyone I visited this CNY. No, not the wealth and good fortune, not the wish for the presence of the God of Fortune in the New Year, it had all got to be about good health. Priorities and realities, they change as you grow older. Perhaps that is why we grow wiser too. Oh to reminisce the fun and folly of youth, days gone by, never to come again.
We wish the best to all the children and send them along their way with a little money during these times. We genuinely wish them the best of life, good fortune, a life in excess (not of excess), excelling in school and, yes, health in their young lives. Even the young die prematurely, in the prime of their lives. We must ever be mindful of that. The young, some of them act and behave like there is no tomorrow. They speed down the expressways after having imbibed a few glasses, devil may care to claim their souls that very day. Many youth puff their way into addiction, thinking that they can put the stick down some time down the road. It rarely works out that way. I know a friend, a good man, who told me that, try as he might, he could never stop smoking. His regret comes too late. He is addicted till the day he breaths his last.
Why such depressing thoughts, this CNY? Perhaps the old look back with a sense of "seen that, done that" 20/20 vision. For all the good wishes over the years, there have been hard times. And 2009 promises to be the hardest of them all, the mother of all depression, they say. Talk is about possible loss of jobs - not because the company will retrench, but that the company will simply disappear, post CNY. People are on edge. It is part of the conversation this CNY. Everyone, it seems knows someone who has such worries on their minds.
But we remind ourselves that we have to be resilient, as the expansionary Government Budget 2009 suggests. More than at any other time, these people already have a plan B, ironically just waiting for that opportune time to put action to words. As the New Year slips into history, we face the inevitable tomorrow.
Happy Lunar New Year!
Wednesday, December 31, 2008
Never brought to mind
The year is coming to a close. In the immortal words of Queen Elizabeth II, this has been an Annus Horibilis. No, this is not a dirty word, at least not in the "common" way it is understood (tsk tsk, what are all of us thinking of on the last day of 2008?)
It started out promisingly enough, coming off a year (2007) that saw record profits for businesses and stratospheric growth of wealth by individuals in en-bloc'ing their private properties - typically their houses. For those who don't know what that means, it is a collective sale of an entire block property such as a condominium, for hundreds of millions of dollars, the proceeds of which is then allocated to the owners according to their share values in the property. A friend of mine received over a million dollars for his townhouse, which was part of a bigger cluster development. No wonder that erstwhile neighbours became mortal enemies when such en-bloc sales were blocked because they couldn't garner the 80% minimum 'ok's' to proceed with the sales. A few lawsuits are still pending in the courts over these disagreements, and people have even complained through the press above the oppressiveness of Sales Committees who just cannot stop thinking about selling their houses.
The year is ending with much less optimism though, amazingly, there are people who still want to go ahead with their en-bloc projects. One wonders if these people have lost so heavily in the stock market, or business, or whatever bombs they had bought into that cash has suddenly taken a critical dimension in the grand scheme of things.
The year is ending with bitter memories for many over the Lehman Brothers debacle, where older people would have lost their entire retirement savings had not DBS done some refunding on compassionate grounds. Of course goodwill and reputation also meant a lot to the bank. Well, never mind, if you are short of cash, there are ways to raise money, such as the rights offering on 22nd December 2008, a third of which was taken up by Temasek Holdings. In these times, you really need Temasek to come in because there aren't much free money sitting around as it used to. And whatever money that many imagined they had have just gone up in smoke, either in the stock market, or in Bernard Madoff, whose estimated US$50 billion loss was the largest any individual had managed to lose - on behalf of his clients, i.e. That's why I have never believed in pyramids where money is concerned, however respectable they are always dressed up to look.
And people are beginning to be out-of-pocket where jobs are concerned. Again, DBS started the ball rolling by putting 900 people out of work. It got an obligatory tongue-lashing from Mr Lim Swee Say, the Trade Union chief, over this action, but it is not likely that retrenchments will stop at DBS Bank, in spite of what the Union leaders say. When the business dries up, when the money stops flowing anymore, you've got to close shop - its a fact of life. What the government can do is pump money into the economy to sustain it, but this can only be a short term measure. Hopefully, the economy will recover at the end of 2009, as some high government officials have dared to predict, but the majority opinion seem to be that this depressing state of affairs is going to last much longer.
And it is sad that the year is ending with news of abandonment of foreign workers by Singapore contractors, who suddenly find that they have no more jobs for people whom they have brought into the country. What's worse, these workers have reportedly not been paid for some time now and some are starving and are no worse off than beggars.
And to end it all, the symbolic Wheel of Fortune, the Singapore Flyer broke down on the 23rd December 2008, trapping 175 people on board at the time. Truly tonight, the last day of 2008, when thousands of people throng the various new year's eve parties on the island, they'd be singing Auld Lang Syne with a new gusto, and especially agree on the question:
Should all acquaintance be forgot and never brought to mind...
Goodnight and goodbye, 2008.
Image: morgueFile.com. Author: elemenoperica
It started out promisingly enough, coming off a year (2007) that saw record profits for businesses and stratospheric growth of wealth by individuals in en-bloc'ing their private properties - typically their houses. For those who don't know what that means, it is a collective sale of an entire block property such as a condominium, for hundreds of millions of dollars, the proceeds of which is then allocated to the owners according to their share values in the property. A friend of mine received over a million dollars for his townhouse, which was part of a bigger cluster development. No wonder that erstwhile neighbours became mortal enemies when such en-bloc sales were blocked because they couldn't garner the 80% minimum 'ok's' to proceed with the sales. A few lawsuits are still pending in the courts over these disagreements, and people have even complained through the press above the oppressiveness of Sales Committees who just cannot stop thinking about selling their houses.
The year is ending with much less optimism though, amazingly, there are people who still want to go ahead with their en-bloc projects. One wonders if these people have lost so heavily in the stock market, or business, or whatever bombs they had bought into that cash has suddenly taken a critical dimension in the grand scheme of things.
The year is ending with bitter memories for many over the Lehman Brothers debacle, where older people would have lost their entire retirement savings had not DBS done some refunding on compassionate grounds. Of course goodwill and reputation also meant a lot to the bank. Well, never mind, if you are short of cash, there are ways to raise money, such as the rights offering on 22nd December 2008, a third of which was taken up by Temasek Holdings. In these times, you really need Temasek to come in because there aren't much free money sitting around as it used to. And whatever money that many imagined they had have just gone up in smoke, either in the stock market, or in Bernard Madoff, whose estimated US$50 billion loss was the largest any individual had managed to lose - on behalf of his clients, i.e. That's why I have never believed in pyramids where money is concerned, however respectable they are always dressed up to look.
And people are beginning to be out-of-pocket where jobs are concerned. Again, DBS started the ball rolling by putting 900 people out of work. It got an obligatory tongue-lashing from Mr Lim Swee Say, the Trade Union chief, over this action, but it is not likely that retrenchments will stop at DBS Bank, in spite of what the Union leaders say. When the business dries up, when the money stops flowing anymore, you've got to close shop - its a fact of life. What the government can do is pump money into the economy to sustain it, but this can only be a short term measure. Hopefully, the economy will recover at the end of 2009, as some high government officials have dared to predict, but the majority opinion seem to be that this depressing state of affairs is going to last much longer.
And it is sad that the year is ending with news of abandonment of foreign workers by Singapore contractors, who suddenly find that they have no more jobs for people whom they have brought into the country. What's worse, these workers have reportedly not been paid for some time now and some are starving and are no worse off than beggars.
And to end it all, the symbolic Wheel of Fortune, the Singapore Flyer broke down on the 23rd December 2008, trapping 175 people on board at the time. Truly tonight, the last day of 2008, when thousands of people throng the various new year's eve parties on the island, they'd be singing Auld Lang Syne with a new gusto, and especially agree on the question:
Should all acquaintance be forgot and never brought to mind...
Goodnight and goodbye, 2008.
Image: morgueFile.com. Author: elemenoperica
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
Don't be blunt
I agree with Minister Lim Boon Heng (Today, 23rd Dec 2008 - page 1). Not that I am a staunch PAP supporter or that I am anti-opposition or that I am a union member. If anything, I am more apathetic politically, so my view this time around, as in many of the past cases I have commented on, is purely based on reason, and perhaps a bit of self-interest. Well, ok, that's a lot of self-interest.
I agree that the Central Provident Fund (CPF) should not be cut in these recessionary times because, as Mr Lim has rightly pointed out, it is a blunt instrument. It will cut the real wages of workers whose organisations are making money in these depressed times just as much as for those organisations which are bleeding red, or at best are just floating above water right now. Now why should workers, salarymen, in profitable companies, be asked to give more of the profit generated through their effort to their employers? So that these employers can buy another couple of houses at depressed prices, and/or mop up shares of blue-chip companies at a bargain, all to their own benefit? If the workers' Unions even contemplate this, they should be run out of the Union house. And since the CPF contribution rates are uniform across the board, then workers in those companies doing badly should also not be touched.
Let's not have a situation where the employers, the bosses, have their cake and eat it too. They can cut the bonuses, other variable wage components and even reduce wages, as suggested by the Union leaders, but not the CPF. We salarymen depend on the money in the CPF account to pay for the roof over our heads We have no choice. Imagine every HDB dweller dumping their houses because they cannot make the mortgage payments. We'll have a crisis worst than the recession on our hands, a situation perhaps akin to the sub-prime mortgage problem in the US. We also need the CPF savings for our retirement years. The government has been harping on the possibility that Singaporeans, in spite of their CPF, may not have enough to retire with. So don't pare it down, don't reduce the quantum of contributions from the employers. Otherwise, reasons for the Retirement Accounts and whatnots that are cooked up from time to time by the government (in good times) will look so hollow.
Singaporeans may be an obedient and disciplined workforce, but we are not stupid. While we do not want to go to the extremes that some American Unions have gone, we need to look out for ourselves too.
Image: morgueFile.com. Author: Dani Simmonds
I agree that the Central Provident Fund (CPF) should not be cut in these recessionary times because, as Mr Lim has rightly pointed out, it is a blunt instrument. It will cut the real wages of workers whose organisations are making money in these depressed times just as much as for those organisations which are bleeding red, or at best are just floating above water right now. Now why should workers, salarymen, in profitable companies, be asked to give more of the profit generated through their effort to their employers? So that these employers can buy another couple of houses at depressed prices, and/or mop up shares of blue-chip companies at a bargain, all to their own benefit? If the workers' Unions even contemplate this, they should be run out of the Union house. And since the CPF contribution rates are uniform across the board, then workers in those companies doing badly should also not be touched.
Let's not have a situation where the employers, the bosses, have their cake and eat it too. They can cut the bonuses, other variable wage components and even reduce wages, as suggested by the Union leaders, but not the CPF. We salarymen depend on the money in the CPF account to pay for the roof over our heads We have no choice. Imagine every HDB dweller dumping their houses because they cannot make the mortgage payments. We'll have a crisis worst than the recession on our hands, a situation perhaps akin to the sub-prime mortgage problem in the US. We also need the CPF savings for our retirement years. The government has been harping on the possibility that Singaporeans, in spite of their CPF, may not have enough to retire with. So don't pare it down, don't reduce the quantum of contributions from the employers. Otherwise, reasons for the Retirement Accounts and whatnots that are cooked up from time to time by the government (in good times) will look so hollow.
Singaporeans may be an obedient and disciplined workforce, but we are not stupid. While we do not want to go to the extremes that some American Unions have gone, we need to look out for ourselves too.
Image: morgueFile.com. Author: Dani Simmonds
Saturday, December 20, 2008
Public Gambling
Mr Khaw Boon Wan comes across as an honest man. Really. Read what he says in interviews and listen to him in Parliament. You cannot fault the man for being drop-death honest with you. He doesn't fudge the issues. Instead, he tells it like it is. He speaks to the common folks, not at them, not over them, not from above. So you cannot but like the man for his forthrightness and ability to empathise with you.He has come out to admit that the mis-investment of sinking funds should rightly be a concern to the man in the street, for after all, these mis-invested money are the people's money, they belong to the townsfolk. (See Straits Times, 19 Dec 2008). But he reasons that since these same investments made money in the past, and the current losses represents a small portion of these gains, it shows that these funds are, on balance, in good hands. He further makes the point that the statement of accounts of these town councils can be inspected any time, no questions asked. I think he is being level-headed and reasonable again. But the problem with this is that it isn't very useful examining the books 'after the fact', is it?
But surely the thing that saved the TC's bacon this time was past investment gains. Let us do a thought experiment, for the heck of it. If a TC had $10million in sinking funds, and invests 10% of it in risky structured deposits (i.e. $100,000) - the law says they can't go beyond 30%. Again, assuming that the annual yield of that investment is 10%. The investment will have yielded $100,000 x 10% = $10,000 in a year. Let's assume the good times lasted 3 years and assuming the same rate of return, the TC ends up with $30,000 profit (let's not do the compounding thing and we shall ignore inflation). Suppose in the 4th year, a financial tsunami hits, and the fund loses $29,000 in absolute terms. That still gives the fund a positive $1,000 over 4 years. Is that good management of funds or not? Of course, you'd have to consider the opportunity cost of the next best option, which is a Fixed Deposit. Over 4 years, the yield, at 2% per annum, will be $2,000 x 4 years, or $8,000. Clearly, in this scenario, it would have been better if the money had been invested in FDs. Of course, you will argue that this scenario is contrived to 'win' the argument, but so is the 'luck' that the TCs counted on over the past to accumulate enough surplus to still come out quite decent in its overall investment returns in spite of the $16million loss. Nevertheless, could my contrived scenario be possible?
If so, in both cases, the balance sheets still yield a positive bottom line, but you and I know that they have lost big time with the structured investment. Mr Khaw's argument begins to get into trouble with a scenario somewere in-between. Is he not then gambling with numbers, like all those queues we witness in front of 4-D booths almost everyday?
It is ok if the money belongs to you, or a private business, but if it is the people's money, which Mr Khaw very rightly admits to be the case, then this risk is not obviously acceptable.
The TCs were just lucky this time around. I know of people, and you will too, whose investments have almost been wiped out, or at least reduced so drastically that it would be a pain greater than going to hell, to liquidate now. And I am not referring only to the mini-bombs...er...bonds, I mean.
Image: morgueFile.com. Author: Lisa Solonynko
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)