Comments, opinions and an occasional ramble
Perspective
Do we “lack” resources?
May 3rd
We have been told from time to time that Singapore is a small rock with no natural resources of its own. Therefore, we have to invest heavily in our human capital because humans are the only resources that Singapore have. The supposed “lack” of natural resource also provides reasons for the ruling PAP to justify it’s hegemony, such as political and social stability, economic prosperity etc.
I have always taken it for granted that our lack of natural resources is a given and never really thought critically about it. I was just lying in bed this morning and somehow the question popped into my head on whether is Singapore really lacking in natural resources? Perhaps we really are lacking natural resources in the conventional sense, i.e. oil, rubber, iron ore etc. In the past, perhaps the lack of such resources is a hindrance to economic prosperity.
However, does the lack of such resources pose economic problems for Singapore today? Maybe it is still a problem, but it’s not that much of a problem because Singapore is shifting into services and knowledge industries. The conventional resources that our leaders like to remind us that we lack are of relatively little importance in current and future Singapore economy. While we may not have resources that we can extract from the ground, we have, or at least are developing resources that others can’t extract from the ground, and it is not easy for other countries to develop such resources quickly.
Therefore, the whole argument about Singapore having little natural resources and therefore we need a certain government to ensure economic prosperity is really just scaremongering, especially in today’s context. We may lack certain types of resources, but we are not really lacking in all types of resources. There is no country that is completely self-sufficient anyway (and from the economic standpoint, it’s not wise to be self-sufficient because of comparative advantage).
I’m not going to buy the argument that Singapore is “poor” in terms of resources and only a certain party is our salvation. Of course, we are not invulnerable but we are not that vulnerable either. Singaporeans perhaps should think about whether the rhetoric regarding our lack of “resources” is indeed as big a problem in today’s context as the government likes to make it out to be, and not just accept the rhetoric blindly.
Thoughts on joining an alumni association
Apr 29th
Now that I’m done with 4 years of university, one thing I’m toying with is joining an alumni association. The most obvious choice for most NUS graduates would be NUS Society (NUSS), since it’s the biggest one with more than 12,000 members. However, the question of need arises. Is there any necessity to joining an alumni association?
The single most useful benefit I can think of is networking at events. It might be useful to get to know fellow alumni working in different fields in case you might need their assistance some day. Of course, if one is interested to network, there are many other ways to do so than to join an alumni group. Further, it might be more useful for people to network within certain limited fields that they are likely to encounter in their work. An alumni association, being broad-based, would hardly be ideal for such networking purposes.
The next most useful benefit would be membership privileges. NUSS has 3 guild houses, including one in Suntec City. That’s quite an attractive benefit. The guild houses offer pretty nice services, such as gym, swimming pool, tennis courts etc. There’s also the DBS platinum credit card for members, which I think is a very good deal. I would also think that standard club privileges such as cheaper booking rates of facilities and lower prices for courses/workshops also apply.
The cost of joining is a one-time $2,000 fee (if you join within first 3 years of graduation), or $3,000 (set to rise eventually to $5,000 in 2009). The monthly subscription fee is now $47.25 a month. The question now for a soon-to-be graduate is whether it is worth taking up a membership, considering both the pros and cons.
The benefits are attractive, but what is NOT attractive is the $2,000 one-time fee. It’s almost a month’s salary for most fresh graduates. NUSS makes things easier by offering a 20 month interest-free installment scheme, but $2,000 is hardly spare change for a fresh graduate with study loans to pay, a wife to marry and a house to buy. And, miss the first 3 years, you’ll end up paying $5,000 (that’s the rate in 2009), which is a larger financial disincentive considering that by then, there’s a housing loan and car loan to pay for, and maybe milk powder and diapers too.
I guess that the implementation of a one-time fee is to give a sense of exclusivity, but it’s a barrier, especially for fresh graduates. I am not surprised if the take up rate among fresh graduates is very low. The monthly subscription fee is still reasonable, but the one-time entrance fee is not, even with an installment plan.
One feasible work-around would be to waive the fee if the graduate remains a member for X years. To me, it doesn’t make sense for an organization to lose potential members because of a high entry barrier. It makes more sense to lower the barrier to entry, get the members in first, and make them want to keep the membership. If the association doesn’t grab the graduate before they step into the working world, it’s going to be hard to get them later. Even if the graduate earns big bucks in future, I’m sure they would go for more prestigious country club memberships (at least I would).
All said, I’m undecided for now. The perks are good, but I can do without them. Besides, the NUSS brand doesn’t appear trendy to young graduates, and joining alumni associations is not a fad at all these days. I bet there are many current undergraduates who have not heard of NUSS, which doesn’t really help things either. They should really do something about the way they market themselves. Whatever method they are using now, it isn’t working. I only know of NUSS because I once held student office and had to work with them. The ordinary student would probably not even know of NUSS’s existence (or maybe just vaguely heard about it), much less bother about the perks and what-nots. If I’m not convinced to join now, it’s probably harder to convince me in future.
The Malaysian brain drain
Apr 26th
I read this interesting entry from (presumably) a Malaysian who condemned the Malaysian education system. The blogger was talking about how Malaysia provides free primary and secondary education, only to have its top students then come over to Singapore universities for 4 years and then work in Singapore for the next 30 years. According to the blogger, for every 18 students with 8As and above, 6 come to Singapore for higher education.
I am not surprised that many bright Malaysian students are choosing to come to Singapore (especially Malaysian Chinese). Firstly, they are being systematically denied of life opportunities in their home country through the bumiputra system. Due to quotas being placed according to race, the Chinese would need 13 As to enter the top Malaysian universities, while a Malay could get in with Bs and Cs. I’m not making this up; I heard it from a Malaysian friend.
I asked a friend who just graduated from Universiti Sains Malaysia, one of the top universities in Malaysia how much would she be getting when she finds a job. She told me RM1,800, and I nearly fell off the chair. That’s about S$800. And, according another Malaysian friend of mine, RM1,800 is considered one of the best salaries for a graduate. The starting salary in Singapore for a graduate is around $2,200 to $2,400 on average, and this is a whopping 3 times more than what a graduate in Malaysia earns.
If I were a top student in Malaysia, of course I’ll choose to come to Singapore and work here for my entire working life. With proper savings and investment, most Malaysians who are graduates can go retire back to Malaysia with at least 1-2 million ringgit. It’s a no brainer whether Singapore or Malaysia offers a much better life opportunity.
Besides, Singapore is very much culturally similar with Malaysia. It’s not hard for Malaysians to assimilate into Singapore society. There is a discernible difference in terms of the accent, but the differences are very slight. Compared to other foreigners, Malaysians would be most able to integrate into Singapore society without much problems. And, compared to other foreigners, they are less likely to be viewed as “competitors” for jobs. It’s weird, but I see most of the anger towards foreign talent being directed at nationalities other than those from the region.
The brain drain is a big problem for Malaysia. If they don’t do something about it, Malaysia will continue to lag behind Singapore in terms of development because its talents are coming into Singapore and contributing to Singapore’s development instead! However, I bet that this brain drain will continue because no Malaysian politician will dare to do away with the bumiputra policy. The Malays in Malaysian have been spoiled by the policy and will never agree to the revoking of the policy. It’s a Catch-22 situation. So, Singapore will prosper at the expense of it’s larger neighbour for many years to come.
Time to move up the ladder
Apr 22nd
I am currently reading “Strategic Pragmatism: The culture of Singapore’s Economic Development Board” by Edgar H. Schien, a prominent American academic. I’m not quite done yet, but I read something of interest, which were two quotes by MM Lee:
“one cannot deal with the communists by arguing ideology with them”
“the best way to fight communism was by providing people with jobs and housing”
I found these quotes interesting because it seems that we are still stuck in the 1960s mode of thinking today, i.e. the best way to deal with political problems is by providing people with jobs and housing. Fundamentally, this principle is not flawed. Of course people need to eat, have a roof over their head and be able to enjoy a life that satisfy their material wishes.
However, a cursory glance at a couple of need theories will reveal to us that things such as food, clothing, shelter and jobs are the lowest level kinds of needs. One of the most famous needs theories would be Abraham Maslow’s hierarchy of needs theory, which can be summed up by the image below (taken from Wikipedia):
Another needs theory would be the ERG theory proposed by Clayton Alderfer. Maslow had a 6 level categorization of needs, but Alderfer collapsed human needs into 3 categories, namely existence, relatedness and growth (hence the name ERG), with existence being the lowest level of need and growth the highest level.
What these needs theories tell us is that there exists somewhat a series of needs on a continuum. Once we have fulfilled a certain level of need, we will yearn for a higher order need. Being stuck at a lower level will result in people feeling inadequate or unhappy. I think this is what is happening to the Singapore population right now. Our GDP per capita shows that we are among the first world countries, and therefore, the existence needs of most Singaporeans are met. Based on MM Lee’s philosophy, Singaporeans should theoretically be satisfied politically.
Yet, Singaporeans do not appear to be satisfied. The recent events over GST increase, ministerial salary revisions and perennial issues such as the GRC system and tying of HDB upgrading to election results are some indicators of the dissatisfaction of Singaporeans. It might be a perplexing scenario to those who hold dear to the belief that people with a full stomach and a roof over their head are happy people. However, I think that Singaporeans in general are now clamouring to seek out higher order needs, such as to be able to effect change in public policy.
In the quest to satisfy higher-order needs, Singaporeans find themselves hitting a brick wall, thus being unhappy. There is a sense of lack of self-efficacy (the belief that one is capable of attaining certain goals). Some people would point institutional barriers, while others opine that Singaporeans have had too good life and are now weak in the knees from years of good life.
I don’t think that such chronic unhappiness is a good thing. A wound if left to fester can turn gangrenous, which might result in an amputation and thus reducing future capability to function. What then is the solution? I think that the average Singaporean need role models. They need to be able to see people whom they can identify with as an ordinary Singaporean folk who speaks up and attempts to create change in the system (and actually succeeding). I think this is the best way to address the lack of self-efficacy in Singapore.
If all we see are the treatment along the likes of Chee Soon Juan, it’s small wonder that Singaporeans feel a lack of self-efficacy. Every time Chee puts up his head, he gets clobbered until it’s bloody. And, there are other cases of less bloody clobbering, but still a clobber nonetheless, such as the Mr Brown case. I don’t believe that such examples are encouraging at all.
I am of the opinion that we need to move up the ladder of needs if we are to survive and prosper in future. We cannot let ourselves be done in by the philosophy of yesterday. Yes, it might have worked then, but circumstances are different now. We need re-evaluate whether the same principles that have served us well will continue to serve us well in the future. Baby shoes certainly do not fit an adolescent.
Interesting news report
Apr 20th
The Home section of the Straits Times today had a story on the first page of the section (after the Kaplan advertisement) titled “Ex-MP may be charged for not disclosing business stake”.
The editors clearly think that it’s an important story, thus putting it on the front page. However, when I read the report, there was absolutely NO mention of who the MP was. The report merely listed the business interests of the person, as well as saying that the ex-MP served four terms of parliament.
This is really interesting because I don’t see a reason why the ex-MP should not be named. I can understand that people cannot be named if the case is still under police investigation. However, the article never mentioned that. So, why the secrecy over the name of the ex-MP? The few exceptions I can accept for not publishing names are cases like rape, child molest etc because it’s bad enough that the victims suffered such grief against their will, and the last thing that they need is more spotlight on their grief.
What I don’t understand is why a four term ex-MP cannot be named. Chances are, the ex-MP was a member of the PAP. I cannot help but wonder if that is the reason why ST did not publish the name of the ex-MP. And, considering that it’s a four term MP, that person must be pretty high-profile. Perhaps it’s a bad time to disclose names given the current public unhappiness with the PAP dominated government.
Whatever the reason, I don’t think it’s good journalistic practice. A first-class country without a first-class newspaper. 
The ineffectiveness of abstinence education
Apr 15th
A study in the United States has shown that abstinence has no impact on the sexual behaviour of teenagers. (See article titled “Abstinence Education Does Not Impact Sexual Behavior”)
The results of this study are important because of its longitudinal nature. It tracked the behaviour of youths who had undergone the abstinence programmes for up to six years. It is perhaps ironical to the proponents of abstinence that despite their efforts, youths who had undergone abstinence programmes are no less likely to abstain from sex compared to youths who had not undergone such programmes.
On the flip side, those who argue that teaching abstinence will result in youths engaging in more unprotected sex shouldn’t rejoice. The same study found that youths who had undergone the abstinence programmes were no more likely than other youths to engage in unprotected sex.
After reviewing the methodology, I’m pretty sure that the study was pretty tight in terms of research design, and the results are indeed valid. Of course, whether the same results are achieved in a similar study in Singapore would be a question mark because of differences in culture. However, given Singapore’s heavy consumption of American media and cultural products, maybe the difference might not be so great.
In anycase, assuming that abstinence is ineffective (the worst case scenario), what should we then offer in terms of sexual education? I’ll support teaching youths the importance of having protected sex. At the end of the day, the two biggest problems with teenage sex are unwanted pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases, all which can be mitigated greatly through having protected sex.
There’s also the moral dimension involved as well, i.e. is it appropriate to have sex outside of marriage (the assumption here is that most youths are not married)? To me, I don’t think the answer should be told to teenagers when conducting sexual education. I think they should discover the answers for themselves. As a liberal, I would actually ask teenagers when they think it’s appropriate to have sex and why? Then, I’ll try and play Devil’s advocate to challenge their beliefs and get them to think a little further. At the end of it all, they’ll be in a better position to make their own decision, and whatever decision they make, I think we should just respect it, since it’s not an ignorant choice anymore. (Yes, it’s idealistic I know, but that’s just me)
Oh, and another interesting result from the study is that peer support is a significant predictor of sexual activity. Those from the pro-abstinence camps might want to take this into consideration. Abstinence programmes might not be effective, but following up with continued peer support might just tilt the scales back.
Lessons from the Qin dynasty
Apr 14th
I used to be an avid reader of Chinese history and classics, until I left secondary school. Chinese history has always been fascinating to me. I did an European history course in my first year and I didn’t quite like it. Chinese history seems more to my liking. And of course, history is fascinating because of the tendency for it to repeat itself in the course of time.
Anyway, of all the various dynasties in ancient China, the Qin dynasty is perhaps one of the most intriguing ones. The founding emperor, 秦始皇 (Qin Shi-huang, meaning Qin, the First Emperor) is an iron-fisted ruler. Some would even call him a brutal tyrant. He abolished the system of feudal lords that caused much of the chaos of the Warring States, and instead divided the country into 36 districts, and he could appoint or dismiss commanders at will. To prevent the building of a base of power, commanders were constantly rotated. Each district also had an inspector to report back to court everything about the district, thus sealing the control of the court over the districts.
Unifying the Warring States, Qin Shih-huang ordered all the members of royalty of the conquered states to move to Xianyang so that he could monitor them closely in case they decided to rebel. He was also known for burning most of the books in existence and the live burial of a large number of intellectuals who refuse to conform to state dogma. And, who can forget that he was responsible for the building of the Great Wall of China, which many people were forcibly conscripted to carry out the job?
Qin Shih-huang is arguably a very talented person. Yet, the Qin dynasty collapsed within 3 years of his death, and it’s the shortest dynasty in Chinese history, lasting about 20 years. The collapse of the Qin dynasty has been attributed to his harsh policies and iron-fisted rule. In fact, when Qin Shih-huang died (during a tour of the country), his Prime Minister, afraid that the news will immediately spark rebellion and uprising, kept the news from the entire royal entourage until they returned to the capital 2 months later. The inevitable, though delayed, still occurred, and the dynasty fell.
The source of the success of the Qin dynasty, i.e. harsh laws and unbearable burdens placed on the subjects (in the form of conscription for the emperor’s various mega-projects and extravagances) eventually led to its downfall. According to Confucius, a government can only last if the ruler is virtuous and win the whole-hearted support of the people. Well, to modify the Confucian idea a little, I would say that a government can only last if the ruler is perceived to be virtuous by the subjects. Therefore, for any government to have a lasting legacy, it would be wise to keep in touch with the ground and understand what the subjects perceive to be a virtuous ruler that they will follow whole-heartedly.
Personal Note:
I think I’ve re-discovered my passion for Chinese language, culture and history. Unfortunately, I’ve not been doing much reading on Chinese culture and history for many years, and I’ve also let my command of Chinese language rust away. I think I’ll set up a blog in Chinese in a couple of weeks to help me practise and revive both knowledge and command of Chinese language.
Small kid to rebellious teenager
Apr 13th
Watching the developments of Singapore politics since November last year, I’m cautiously optimistic. Other bloggers have also voiced similar optimism in Singapore society, such as Mr Wang. And, it’s not for no good reason.
The heated debate over the GST increase and ministerial salary increase would have been unthinkable 20 – 30 years ago. The average Singaporean in the street was like a small kid under the strong thumb of the parents. The kid was weak and relatively ignorant. The adult parents were much stronger and more experienced. They could invent all kinds of ways to pacify the kid, and when the kid sometimes throw tantrums, scoldings and caning threats kept the kid in place.
Fast forward to 2006/2007. The average Singaporean is now no longer a kid. It’s a rebellious teenager. The ignorant kid of yesteryear has come to realise that there’s more than meets the eye. The pacifist tricks employed during the childhood years no longer work. Scoldings and caning threats are not as effective anymore, not least because the kid has grown much bigger and stronger. And the rebellious teenager is not about to quietly take no for an answer. The teenager asks more and more tough questions, and sometimes the parents find it hard to answer them satisfactorily, but yet the parents has to try because the old methods don’t work anymore.
In 40 years, Singapore grew from an economic infant to an economic adult. Yet politically, the average Singaporean remained a kid that’s firmly thumbed by its parents. But, the kid has finally become a rebellious teenager. Hopefully, the rebellious teenager will soon become a powerful and intelligent adult capable of influencing decisions, or even become the decision-maker. It has taken 40 years for Singapore to grow politically from a kid to a teenager. Hopefully, it doesn’t take another 40 years or more for the teenager to become an adult.
PM Lee leads by example
Apr 11th
It was reported in Channel News Asia that PM Lee will freeze his own pay for the next 5 years and donate away the pay increases in these 5 years. Read the full story here.
I am extremely heartened by PM Lee’s move. Maybe some people are still going to blast him for doing it as a belated PR stunt, but I think that as a leader of the country, he has done the right thing. And, I respect him for doing that. It shows that at least the leader of the country is not out of touch with reality. He has reclaimed some of the moral authority that the government has lost regarding this whole ministerial pay increase business.
In the Analects, the Confucius said this of a government leader:
å曰：“苟æ£å…¶èº«çŸ£ï¼ŒäºŽä»Žæ”¿ä¹Žä½•æœ‰ï¼Ÿä¸èƒ½æ£å…¶èº«ï¼Œå¦‚æ£äººä½•ï¼Ÿâ€
Translated, the above line says: “If one is able to correct oneself, what is so difficult about governance? If one cannot even correct oneself, how does he expect to correct others?”
Indeed, PM Lee understands the importance of leadership by example. This is the kind of leader that followers will gladly obey and stick with through thick and thin. To quote another line from the Analects:
å曰：“其身æ£ï¼Œä¸ä»¤è€Œè¡Œï¼›å…¶ä¸æ£ï¼Œè™½ä»¤ä¸ä»Žã€‚â€
Translated, it says: “If one is moral and upright, people will follow without being ordered. If one is immoral and corrupted, people will disobey despite being ordered.”
I hope that the other ministers will take their cue from the Prime Minister and do the same. If such are the characters of all our government leaders, then I’m prepared to stake my future and life with Singapore. If not, no amount of money or glory will stop me from leaving Singapore.
Afterthought:
I hope that SPH and the other MPs DO NOT do the cheer leading like they did for the GST offset package. It will leave a very disgusting aftertaste if it happens and any goodwill from Singaporeans generated as a result of the PM’s voluntary gesture would disappear in smoke.
New formula for ministerial salary
Apr 10th
Elia Diodati’s blog had an anonymous contributor discussing Singapore’s bleak future. That person is Singaporean and working in a high tech company in Silicon Valley. In discussing the high ministerial salary, that contributor brought up the case of Google. I quote the relevant sentence:
Here in the Bay area, you have places like Google where CEOs are paid a mere $1 per year with almost all of their assets tied to stock options. Yes, they can make tons of money but they also risk losing all of it.
I say we follow the same formula for Singapore’s ministerial salary. Let their salaries be pegged to the country’s growth. They take home a base of $1 per year, but for every 1% growth in Singapore’s GDP, junior ministers gets $150,000 while senior ministers get $250,000. If our ministers are indeed that talented, and that they join politics out of a sense of duty to the country, they should not be afraid to take on a pay package that’s completely variable.
And, in doing so, they can reclaim the moral authority that has been lost as a result of this ministerial pay adjustment exercise. The question is, how many of them are willing to tie their fortunes to Singapore’s? Or do we hand them an almost unbreakable rice bowl?
Recent Comments