Hi Friends,
Gong Xi Fa Cai!
May we not just have material blessings but also good health so that we can live meaningful lives amongst our kinfolks, friends and community.
My largely unedited letter has been published in the Straits Times Forum today.
I am disturbed that MOH –which had backed down earlier about setting up Old Folks’ Homes in Malaysia after an uproar, has now introduced it again, albeit in a different skin.
Healthcare initiatives- Old Folks’ Homes and now this
The Old Folks’ Home initiative and now the Medisave for Malaysia move is an admission that certain Singaporeans have been priced out of their own homeland.
To some,it seems a logical solution,” If Singaporeans cannot afford to live their remaining days in Singapore- why not just let them do it in Malaysia”. Now it is –“ If Singaporeans cannot afford to have quality healthcare on our own shores- maybe Malaysia boleh (can) ( with a little help from Medisave)”
But others will ask questions like "Why is it that the MOH feels that in our multi-strata healthcare system, which range from C class beds in public hospitals to the super-duper suites in our private hospitals (that even regional royalties feel comfortable in), cannot meet the needs of Singaporeans? Shouldn’t we try to meet the demands and aspirations of Singaporeans within our system instead of sending them up north? Did we not pay tax so that our system can help us when we are sick and old?
MOH should try harder to improve the system so that Singaporeans feel they get more “bang for their dollars" . I do not recall all major stakeholders being consulted about this.
Impact for tourism industry
What about our national plan to make Singapore a regional centre of excellence for Medical Tourism? Each medical tourist comes typically with at least 2-3 family members. This is a huge spin-off with a multiplying effect for hotels, F&B and shopping centres. In one stroke, the MOH has just leaked out a family secret ( and I am not agreeing to this) that Malaysian hospitals are cheap and just as good!
Malaysia has just got a very un-expected Lunar Near Year Hong Bao from MOH! No amount of publicity nor advertisements by Malaysia’s tourism board can compare with such an ringing endorsement from none other than Malaysia’s erstwhile competitor.
Read this space- there will soon be insurance policies which are priced below our present premiums, but with a catch- “Co-payment if treated in Singapore hospitals, but, full reimbursements if treated in Malaysia”
I guess this populist move will win the minister many votes for the coming elections. Why worry about our healthcare system?
Cheers
Dr Huang Shoou Chyuan
Will it come back to haunt us later? (16 Feb 2010 ST Forum)
I REFER to last Thursday's report, 'Medisave can be used in 12 Malaysian hospitals'. The move by the Ministry of Health (MOH) to allow Medisave deduction for hospitalisation in Malaysian hospitals is, in my view, like scoring an own goal in a soccer match.
To say the least, it sends a confusing signal. It is as though MOH is admitting that it has failed in its mission to cater to all Singaporeans in our own often-lauded health-care system.
Is the claim that even the poorest Singaporean will be looked after in our health-care facilities - with its subsidies and special funding such as Medifund - just an empty boast now?
MOH is in fact using national resources - Medisave infrastructure - to build up a competitor's capabilities. Is MOH still serious about helping Singapore become a medical tourism centre of excellence?
This populist measure may seem to placate short-term demands - only to come back to haunt us later when our own health-care and tourism industries are hollowed out in the medium to long term.
By then, any new measure will be futile and like shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted.
Dr Huang Shoou Chyuan
Showing posts with label economics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label economics. Show all posts
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Thursday, December 03, 2009
English proficiency for foreign frontline service workers
Hi friends,
In May 2008, I wrote to the papers to suggest that foreign frontline service workers be required to take basic English proficiency tests. This will increase productivity (as English is our lingua franca) and reduce the angst of many Singaporeans who had encountered frontline workers who could not understand English.
If such a worker was working at the Chinese Chamber of Commerce, one would not have bat an eyelid, but the thing is that these non-English speakers are working on Mainstreet Singapore.
Anyway, please click here to read my blog post on this.
The government has responded.
In this little red dot, things move- but sometimes at a glacial pace.
So if there is anyone out there with bright ideas- don’t give up.
Cheers,
Dr Huang Shoou Chyuan
Only if they speak English ...
05:55 AM Dec 03, 2009 (Today)
by WANG ENG ENG AND ALICIA WONG
SINGAPORE - It could be the next best thing to outright requiring all foreign service staff to be conversant in English, for those tired of encountering sales assistants and waiters who don't speak a word of it.
From the third quarter of next year, work permit holders in the retail, food and beverage and hotels sectors will need to pass an English language proficiency test in order to qualify for skilled levy status.
It passes the buck, literally, to employers who pay just $150 a month for the skilled workers levy but $240 for the unskilled levy.
And while some industry players applaud this, others lament the cost of training.
The Manpower Ministry will partner NTUC Learning Hub and the Workforce Development Agency to train workers, and they are anticipating a two- to three-times increase in demand for English classes. More details of the tests will come next year.
The move, said Restaurant Association of Singapore Ang Kiam Meng, will force employers to look "more proactively" at the communication problems of foreign service staff. "It will encourage the restaurateur to upgrade their non-speaking English workforce ... As a whole it's positive for the industry," he said. But he wondered if it would prove an "extra (cost) burden" for employers.
At the Migrant Workers Centre, which yesterday saw its first batch of foreign workers graduate from a basic English course, subsidised fees are under $200 a person.
Businesses have other concerns. "Half of our workers will not make it (past the test) and might not be able to continue to work. We're going to face problems," said Ms Christine Chan, human resource manager at Riverview Hotel.
The affected half are mainly the backend staff who do not deal with customers. "When we employed them, we did not expect them to speak good or simple English," she said, pointing out that the hotel might not be able to convert all those who fail the proficiency test to unskilled worker status, as there is a quota for unskilled workers too.
And with the integrated resorts opening, "if we send staff for the English course, if they improve their competency, will they continue to work with us or move on? Cannot make them sign bond, right?" said Ms Chan.
How would the move affect companies' hiring decisions - would they give priority to those proficient in English, or willingly hire first and train later?
"The more enlightened businesses will train their staff before putting them in the frontline," said Singapore Chinese Chamber Institute of Business senior sales and marketing manager Chew Kheng Fui - while another option could be to ensure frontline staff pass the proficiency test but resign to paying the unskilled levy for backend staff.
Or would employers turn to hiring more Singaporeans? "I wish it could but I don't think it will happen," said Mr Chew. "Getting foreigners to do the job will still be much more cost effective. Employers will just be more selective in hiring foreigners that can speak better English - so maybe the Filipinos have the advantage, compared to mainland Chinese."
Minister of State (Manpower and Trade and Industry) Lee Yi Shyan said: "We want to encourage employers to look at it as building a more productive workforce ... If they look at how much better service they can provide, that should incentivise them to send the workers for the programme.
"The cost in training is a small factor. Whether local or foreign, you have to continue to train our workers ... Otherwise, if we stand still in our skill level, our economy will not be competitive."
In May 2008, I wrote to the papers to suggest that foreign frontline service workers be required to take basic English proficiency tests. This will increase productivity (as English is our lingua franca) and reduce the angst of many Singaporeans who had encountered frontline workers who could not understand English.
If such a worker was working at the Chinese Chamber of Commerce, one would not have bat an eyelid, but the thing is that these non-English speakers are working on Mainstreet Singapore.
Anyway, please click here to read my blog post on this.
The government has responded.
In this little red dot, things move- but sometimes at a glacial pace.
So if there is anyone out there with bright ideas- don’t give up.
Cheers,
Dr Huang Shoou Chyuan
Only if they speak English ...
05:55 AM Dec 03, 2009 (Today)
by WANG ENG ENG AND ALICIA WONG
SINGAPORE - It could be the next best thing to outright requiring all foreign service staff to be conversant in English, for those tired of encountering sales assistants and waiters who don't speak a word of it.
From the third quarter of next year, work permit holders in the retail, food and beverage and hotels sectors will need to pass an English language proficiency test in order to qualify for skilled levy status.
It passes the buck, literally, to employers who pay just $150 a month for the skilled workers levy but $240 for the unskilled levy.
And while some industry players applaud this, others lament the cost of training.
The Manpower Ministry will partner NTUC Learning Hub and the Workforce Development Agency to train workers, and they are anticipating a two- to three-times increase in demand for English classes. More details of the tests will come next year.
The move, said Restaurant Association of Singapore Ang Kiam Meng, will force employers to look "more proactively" at the communication problems of foreign service staff. "It will encourage the restaurateur to upgrade their non-speaking English workforce ... As a whole it's positive for the industry," he said. But he wondered if it would prove an "extra (cost) burden" for employers.
At the Migrant Workers Centre, which yesterday saw its first batch of foreign workers graduate from a basic English course, subsidised fees are under $200 a person.
Businesses have other concerns. "Half of our workers will not make it (past the test) and might not be able to continue to work. We're going to face problems," said Ms Christine Chan, human resource manager at Riverview Hotel.
The affected half are mainly the backend staff who do not deal with customers. "When we employed them, we did not expect them to speak good or simple English," she said, pointing out that the hotel might not be able to convert all those who fail the proficiency test to unskilled worker status, as there is a quota for unskilled workers too.
And with the integrated resorts opening, "if we send staff for the English course, if they improve their competency, will they continue to work with us or move on? Cannot make them sign bond, right?" said Ms Chan.
How would the move affect companies' hiring decisions - would they give priority to those proficient in English, or willingly hire first and train later?
"The more enlightened businesses will train their staff before putting them in the frontline," said Singapore Chinese Chamber Institute of Business senior sales and marketing manager Chew Kheng Fui - while another option could be to ensure frontline staff pass the proficiency test but resign to paying the unskilled levy for backend staff.
Or would employers turn to hiring more Singaporeans? "I wish it could but I don't think it will happen," said Mr Chew. "Getting foreigners to do the job will still be much more cost effective. Employers will just be more selective in hiring foreigners that can speak better English - so maybe the Filipinos have the advantage, compared to mainland Chinese."
Minister of State (Manpower and Trade and Industry) Lee Yi Shyan said: "We want to encourage employers to look at it as building a more productive workforce ... If they look at how much better service they can provide, that should incentivise them to send the workers for the programme.
"The cost in training is a small factor. Whether local or foreign, you have to continue to train our workers ... Otherwise, if we stand still in our skill level, our economy will not be competitive."
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Singapore faces the abyss and what I can do about it!
January 21, 2009
Singapore faces devastating exodus of foreigners
Leo Lewis, Asia Business Correspondent
From Times Online
Singapore faces an exodus of 200,000 foreigners as the financial services and manufacturing industries scythe through their workforces and the city-state grinds towards the worst recession in its 43-year history.
The expected exodus, predict analysts at Credit Suisse, could see the number of people living in the tiny but economically powerful island shrink more than 3 per cent to just 4.68 million by 2010 in a shift that would severely undermine the government’s 22-year efforts to boost the population through immigration.
A broad rule of thumb, said analysts at UBS in Singapore, is that nearly every new job created over the last few years went to a foreigner. The economic policies of the city state have overtly relied on its ability to attract talent and skills from abroad.
The departure of thousands of ex-pat bankers, lawyers and accountants between now and 2010 is expected to lead a secondary exodus of manufacturing, construction and service sector foreign workers.
Job losses will hit Singapore hard, said Credit Suisse economist Cem Karacadag, “because they affect more highly paid workers and could result in a semi-permanent drip in the population”. He added that the potential drop “would have far-reaching implications for the economy” including a possible sharp contraction in private consumption.
The knock-on effects of a Singapore exodus, some real estate analysts believe, could also see property prices fall by as much as 30 per cent from their current levels.
Credit Suisse’s grim population forecast comes amid warnings that among non-Japan Asian countries, Singapore’s open economy may be hit hardest by the global downturn. Consumption growth, said the report, could fall to almost zero.
Analysts at believe that the country’s GDP may contract by 2.8 per cent in 2009 as rising unemployment hammers domestic growth and the collapse of consumer confidence around the world hits exports.
Mr Karacadag raised a further red flag for Singapore’s economy by warning that there was a risk that forecasts were still underestimating the effects of a broad Asian downturn and further terrible news from the financial sector.
Singapore – the world’s busiest port by tonnage handled and the home of some of the world’s largest shipping companies - is already feeling the pain of an alarming slump in global trade.
With the credit crunch still affecting trade finance and the demand for Asian manufactured goods in acute decline, hundreds of container and dry-bulk ships now sit unneeded and at anchor outside Singapore. The stagnation, say brokers, is matched onshore.
In tandem with the warnings over a possible population crunch, concerns are growing among investors over the health of Singapore’s domestic banks. The “benign asset quality” environment in which Singapore banks have thrived, say analysts, has now reached an inflection point.
The ratio of non- performing loans is expected to rise sharply as the construction boom that has filled the Singapore skyline with towers and cranes begins to deflate.
Between 2003 and 2008, the population of the city state soared nearly 18 per cent in an increase driven predominantly by foreigners hired to meet Singapore’s endemic shortage of workers during the good times.
When global trade, investment banking and Asian stock markets were booming, Singapore successfully fashioned itself as a financial hub to rival Tokyo and Hong Kong and the expatriates flooded in – around 200,000 jobs were created in the financial and business services sector over the last four years.
A large number of jobs are expected to be lost in manufacturing, which accounts for about a quarter of Singapore’s GDP.
My comments:
Hi friends,
The article above makes grim reading.
On a first glance of the title, my initial response was,”So what’s so devastating about foreigners leaving?”
In my naiveté, I thought that Singaporeans (especially the lower income group) would benefit from less competition for jobs.
How wrong and how stupid I was as a more careful examination of the author’s analysis show that the exodus of all strata of foreigners will have profound implications to our GDP.
As anyone who has a rudimentary knowledge of Economics will tell you that in an open economy,
Gross Domestic Product (GDP) =C+G+I+X-M (read here)
C=Private consumption
G=Government spending
I=Investments
X=Exports
M=Imports
The author,Lewis, thinks, and I do not think anyone will disagree, that Singapore’s C, I and X will fall. I am also sure that although M will fall but it will be to a lesser extent than X, hence leading to smaller net export (X-M).
It is a given that no matter how much G (the last component) will be (and I wait with bated breath for Tharman’s budget speech on Friday 23 Jan 09 ), GDP growth will be negative ( duh?!).
Tax breaks there undoubtedly will be (eg decreased income/property tax) and these breaks would leave more money in the consumer’s pockets who, hopefully, will have less reason not to spend. Just as importantly, tax breaks will also lead to less companies turning “turtle up” or having to lay off workers.
I know many were cynical when SM Goh Chok Tong mentioned the “Paradox of thrift” and encouraged those who could afford to spend. In the coffeeshops, many were saying," Of course it's easy for SM to spend as he has million-dollar salary" etc . But he was just alluding to a Keynesian truism that is taught to all economics students. (read here)
Personally, I try not to be too miserly and do try to support small traders and shopkeepers.For example, I bought some "ba chang" dumplings and Meat “paus” yesterday even though I was not hungry (and was trying desperately and with little success to get back my BMI (Body Mass Index) below 27 much less the recommended 23!). (read here)
The elderly man and middle-aged woman from these 2 adjacent stalls were really looking forlorn and despondent. I didn’t think my few dollars would make their day but still, I think every bit helps. I have a soft spot for underdogs (as many of you would have surmised by now). I am also a chaser of lost causes - so be forewarned if you need my support for any worthy causes.
So guys (and gals), let us survive this recession together.
Keep your chins up. Keep your jobs (if possible). Spend ( if you can afford it).
Cheers,
Dr.Huang Shoou Chyuan
Singapore faces devastating exodus of foreigners
Leo Lewis, Asia Business Correspondent
From Times Online
Singapore faces an exodus of 200,000 foreigners as the financial services and manufacturing industries scythe through their workforces and the city-state grinds towards the worst recession in its 43-year history.
The expected exodus, predict analysts at Credit Suisse, could see the number of people living in the tiny but economically powerful island shrink more than 3 per cent to just 4.68 million by 2010 in a shift that would severely undermine the government’s 22-year efforts to boost the population through immigration.
A broad rule of thumb, said analysts at UBS in Singapore, is that nearly every new job created over the last few years went to a foreigner. The economic policies of the city state have overtly relied on its ability to attract talent and skills from abroad.
The departure of thousands of ex-pat bankers, lawyers and accountants between now and 2010 is expected to lead a secondary exodus of manufacturing, construction and service sector foreign workers.
Job losses will hit Singapore hard, said Credit Suisse economist Cem Karacadag, “because they affect more highly paid workers and could result in a semi-permanent drip in the population”. He added that the potential drop “would have far-reaching implications for the economy” including a possible sharp contraction in private consumption.
The knock-on effects of a Singapore exodus, some real estate analysts believe, could also see property prices fall by as much as 30 per cent from their current levels.
Credit Suisse’s grim population forecast comes amid warnings that among non-Japan Asian countries, Singapore’s open economy may be hit hardest by the global downturn. Consumption growth, said the report, could fall to almost zero.
Analysts at believe that the country’s GDP may contract by 2.8 per cent in 2009 as rising unemployment hammers domestic growth and the collapse of consumer confidence around the world hits exports.
Mr Karacadag raised a further red flag for Singapore’s economy by warning that there was a risk that forecasts were still underestimating the effects of a broad Asian downturn and further terrible news from the financial sector.
Singapore – the world’s busiest port by tonnage handled and the home of some of the world’s largest shipping companies - is already feeling the pain of an alarming slump in global trade.
With the credit crunch still affecting trade finance and the demand for Asian manufactured goods in acute decline, hundreds of container and dry-bulk ships now sit unneeded and at anchor outside Singapore. The stagnation, say brokers, is matched onshore.
In tandem with the warnings over a possible population crunch, concerns are growing among investors over the health of Singapore’s domestic banks. The “benign asset quality” environment in which Singapore banks have thrived, say analysts, has now reached an inflection point.
The ratio of non- performing loans is expected to rise sharply as the construction boom that has filled the Singapore skyline with towers and cranes begins to deflate.
Between 2003 and 2008, the population of the city state soared nearly 18 per cent in an increase driven predominantly by foreigners hired to meet Singapore’s endemic shortage of workers during the good times.
When global trade, investment banking and Asian stock markets were booming, Singapore successfully fashioned itself as a financial hub to rival Tokyo and Hong Kong and the expatriates flooded in – around 200,000 jobs were created in the financial and business services sector over the last four years.
A large number of jobs are expected to be lost in manufacturing, which accounts for about a quarter of Singapore’s GDP.
My comments:
Hi friends,
The article above makes grim reading.
On a first glance of the title, my initial response was,”So what’s so devastating about foreigners leaving?”
In my naiveté, I thought that Singaporeans (especially the lower income group) would benefit from less competition for jobs.
How wrong and how stupid I was as a more careful examination of the author’s analysis show that the exodus of all strata of foreigners will have profound implications to our GDP.
As anyone who has a rudimentary knowledge of Economics will tell you that in an open economy,
Gross Domestic Product (GDP) =C+G+I+X-M (read here)
C=Private consumption
G=Government spending
I=Investments
X=Exports
M=Imports
The author,Lewis, thinks, and I do not think anyone will disagree, that Singapore’s C, I and X will fall. I am also sure that although M will fall but it will be to a lesser extent than X, hence leading to smaller net export (X-M).
It is a given that no matter how much G (the last component) will be (and I wait with bated breath for Tharman’s budget speech on Friday 23 Jan 09 ), GDP growth will be negative ( duh?!).
Tax breaks there undoubtedly will be (eg decreased income/property tax) and these breaks would leave more money in the consumer’s pockets who, hopefully, will have less reason not to spend. Just as importantly, tax breaks will also lead to less companies turning “turtle up” or having to lay off workers.
I know many were cynical when SM Goh Chok Tong mentioned the “Paradox of thrift” and encouraged those who could afford to spend. In the coffeeshops, many were saying," Of course it's easy for SM to spend as he has million-dollar salary" etc . But he was just alluding to a Keynesian truism that is taught to all economics students. (read here)
Personally, I try not to be too miserly and do try to support small traders and shopkeepers.For example, I bought some "ba chang" dumplings and Meat “paus” yesterday even though I was not hungry (and was trying desperately and with little success to get back my BMI (Body Mass Index) below 27 much less the recommended 23!). (read here)
The elderly man and middle-aged woman from these 2 adjacent stalls were really looking forlorn and despondent. I didn’t think my few dollars would make their day but still, I think every bit helps. I have a soft spot for underdogs (as many of you would have surmised by now). I am also a chaser of lost causes - so be forewarned if you need my support for any worthy causes.
So guys (and gals), let us survive this recession together.
Keep your chins up. Keep your jobs (if possible). Spend ( if you can afford it).
Cheers,
Dr.Huang Shoou Chyuan
Thursday, September 25, 2008
On Naked Short-selling ( Letter to Forum)
September 24, 2008
Dear Editor,
I applaud Singapore Exchange’s (SGX) latest ban on “naked” short-selling of shares.
This unreal practice has been tolerated for too long and this restriction, which is long overdue, will help to weed out unhealthy speculating.
“Naked” short-selling occurs when one sells a stock that one does not own in the hope of pocketing a profit when the stock is bought back after its price has fallen.
In the real world, you and I do not sell a car nor a house that we do not own, do we?
For those caught with their pants down, I hope that this serves as a reality check.
Dr.Huang Shoou Chyuan
Dear Editor,
I applaud Singapore Exchange’s (SGX) latest ban on “naked” short-selling of shares.
This unreal practice has been tolerated for too long and this restriction, which is long overdue, will help to weed out unhealthy speculating.
“Naked” short-selling occurs when one sells a stock that one does not own in the hope of pocketing a profit when the stock is bought back after its price has fallen.
In the real world, you and I do not sell a car nor a house that we do not own, do we?
For those caught with their pants down, I hope that this serves as a reality check.
Dr.Huang Shoou Chyuan
Sunday, September 14, 2008
Village's Valuable Valets eVicted (Letter to Forum)
September 14, 2008
Dear Editor,
Introduction
The iconic Holland Village faces a car-park space crunch.
This is unfortunate as Holland V, as it is affectionately known, has become something of a tourist attraction boasting a myriad of global cuisines and is popular for its alfresco dining.
For reasons known only to Providence and our omniscient government, the restaurant owners are made to suffer one misfortune after another.
Holland V’s list of misfortunes
First came 9-11 seven years ago when as an anti-terrorist measure, part of the main street was closed to vehicular traffic and car-parking curtailed.
Then came the Circle Line MRT station construction (2004) when much-needed carpark lots disappeared.
Just when the entrepreneurial business owners thought they had found an innovative solution by having valets park their patrons’ cars, the HDB, almost predictably, appeared to shove a spanner in the works.
Valet parking is efficient use of resources
From my personal experience, valet parking is an extremely efficient use of limited resources. All hospitals (private and public), many major eateries and all hotels use them. Valets can squeeze in many more cars into a limited space then ever thought possible. No machines can ever replace the ingenuity of the human brain.
HDB,Consider this win-win solution
HDB, please don’t be silly. Have a heart and please consider the following win-win solution.
1. Proceed with the Electronic Parking system (EPS). With this, there is no question of HDB being deprived of its revenue. Valet parking will be in addition to and not a substitute for payment for carparks.
2. Let the valets continue, but only under close scrutiny. Residents and patrons who are self-parkng must not be harassed nor inconvenienced. Fine the valets for infringements, if you have to.
In this difficult economic climate, government bodies such as the HDB should consider themselves partners of private enterprise, helping small businesses survive.
What say you, HDB?
Dr.Huang Shoou Chyuan
cc: HDB
Links:1.ST Discussion Forum & 2. ST Report
NB: This letter printed in 2 newspapers
Dear Editor,
Introduction
The iconic Holland Village faces a car-park space crunch.
This is unfortunate as Holland V, as it is affectionately known, has become something of a tourist attraction boasting a myriad of global cuisines and is popular for its alfresco dining.
For reasons known only to Providence and our omniscient government, the restaurant owners are made to suffer one misfortune after another.
Holland V’s list of misfortunes
First came 9-11 seven years ago when as an anti-terrorist measure, part of the main street was closed to vehicular traffic and car-parking curtailed.
Then came the Circle Line MRT station construction (2004) when much-needed carpark lots disappeared.
Just when the entrepreneurial business owners thought they had found an innovative solution by having valets park their patrons’ cars, the HDB, almost predictably, appeared to shove a spanner in the works.
Valet parking is efficient use of resources
From my personal experience, valet parking is an extremely efficient use of limited resources. All hospitals (private and public), many major eateries and all hotels use them. Valets can squeeze in many more cars into a limited space then ever thought possible. No machines can ever replace the ingenuity of the human brain.
HDB,Consider this win-win solution
HDB, please don’t be silly. Have a heart and please consider the following win-win solution.
1. Proceed with the Electronic Parking system (EPS). With this, there is no question of HDB being deprived of its revenue. Valet parking will be in addition to and not a substitute for payment for carparks.
2. Let the valets continue, but only under close scrutiny. Residents and patrons who are self-parkng must not be harassed nor inconvenienced. Fine the valets for infringements, if you have to.
In this difficult economic climate, government bodies such as the HDB should consider themselves partners of private enterprise, helping small businesses survive.
What say you, HDB?
Dr.Huang Shoou Chyuan
cc: HDB
Links:1.ST Discussion Forum & 2. ST Report
NB: This letter printed in 2 newspapers
Monday, July 14, 2008
Response to Minister Gan on the Lowly-waged worker- A letter to the editor
Dear Editor,
Response to Acting MOM Minister Gan
I would like to respond to what Acting Manpower Minister has said in a recent interview with the local media (Growth slowing, but there will still be new jobs-ST July 10 2008) about the plight of the low-wage workers.
As he rightly said, job creation is “not just a numbers game”.
Let me suggest that it is about helping real Singaporeans find real jobs that can enable them make ends meet without having to work multiple part-time jobs or working a full-time job and yet having to ask for government handouts.
Wages at the bottom remained stagnant for past 10 years
It is clear that the present system is not working out for the Singaporean lowly-educated low-waged worker as a recent media report (Wages rose but not for those at the bottom ST 1 July 08) showed that the wages for this group had remained stagnant for the past 10 years! The lowly-skilled wages have entered a race to the bottom and if left alone will lead to further hopelessness and despondency for these Singaporeans.
These workers have the unenviable task of competing for lowly-skilled jobs with other lowly-skilled foreign workers. However these foreigners have the advantage of youth (and many of our lowly-skilled are middle-aged or older) and a currency exchange that is favorable to them. They can “bite the bullet” for a few years, earn $600-800/month, share a flat with many others and yet be able to repatriate reasonable amounts of money home making their journey here economically worthwhile.
Foreigners are positive for Singapore but…
I am not against foreigners. We are an immigrant people and I believe that having foreigners here has added diversity and vibrancy to many sectors of our society. I am happier still when they decide to permanently sink their roots here by taking up Singapore citizenship and help us make Singapore a better place.
Responsibility of government and my suggestions
However, it is the job of every government to take care of its own citizens first, especially those of the lower income strata.
May I humbly suggest:
1. Stricter enforcement of the local-foreign worker ratio to ensure that companies are not cheating?
2. Consider a Minimal Wage for certain sectors where locals may conceivably work in eg Service industry / F&B. We know Singaporeans will not work in construction.
3. Increase handouts for these Singaporeans in the forms of actual cash and not just into their CPF.
I know there is no perfect solution and each option has its problems, eg Minimal wages may sometimes lead to unemployment or inflation, but these Singaporeans need help and need it fast.
Singapore’s present success is built in no small measure on the backs of the Singaporean blue-collar worker. It is time they expect something in return. Singapore must help them, perhaps even at the expense of the economy.
We must leave no man behind!
Sincerely yours,
Dr.Huang Shoou Chyuan
Link: MrBiao has written on this also (Singapore policy makers living in the clouds)
NB: Can some kind soul show me where to get the digital copy of Minister Gan's interview? I don't subscribe to the ST online. I will append it to the post and it will be more meaningful esply for those readers who have not read the interview.
PS: Not published
Response to Acting MOM Minister Gan
I would like to respond to what Acting Manpower Minister has said in a recent interview with the local media (Growth slowing, but there will still be new jobs-ST July 10 2008) about the plight of the low-wage workers.
As he rightly said, job creation is “not just a numbers game”.
Let me suggest that it is about helping real Singaporeans find real jobs that can enable them make ends meet without having to work multiple part-time jobs or working a full-time job and yet having to ask for government handouts.
Wages at the bottom remained stagnant for past 10 years
It is clear that the present system is not working out for the Singaporean lowly-educated low-waged worker as a recent media report (Wages rose but not for those at the bottom ST 1 July 08) showed that the wages for this group had remained stagnant for the past 10 years! The lowly-skilled wages have entered a race to the bottom and if left alone will lead to further hopelessness and despondency for these Singaporeans.
These workers have the unenviable task of competing for lowly-skilled jobs with other lowly-skilled foreign workers. However these foreigners have the advantage of youth (and many of our lowly-skilled are middle-aged or older) and a currency exchange that is favorable to them. They can “bite the bullet” for a few years, earn $600-800/month, share a flat with many others and yet be able to repatriate reasonable amounts of money home making their journey here economically worthwhile.
Foreigners are positive for Singapore but…
I am not against foreigners. We are an immigrant people and I believe that having foreigners here has added diversity and vibrancy to many sectors of our society. I am happier still when they decide to permanently sink their roots here by taking up Singapore citizenship and help us make Singapore a better place.
Responsibility of government and my suggestions
However, it is the job of every government to take care of its own citizens first, especially those of the lower income strata.
May I humbly suggest:
1. Stricter enforcement of the local-foreign worker ratio to ensure that companies are not cheating?
2. Consider a Minimal Wage for certain sectors where locals may conceivably work in eg Service industry / F&B. We know Singaporeans will not work in construction.
3. Increase handouts for these Singaporeans in the forms of actual cash and not just into their CPF.
I know there is no perfect solution and each option has its problems, eg Minimal wages may sometimes lead to unemployment or inflation, but these Singaporeans need help and need it fast.
Singapore’s present success is built in no small measure on the backs of the Singaporean blue-collar worker. It is time they expect something in return. Singapore must help them, perhaps even at the expense of the economy.
We must leave no man behind!
Sincerely yours,
Dr.Huang Shoou Chyuan
Link: MrBiao has written on this also (Singapore policy makers living in the clouds)
NB: Can some kind soul show me where to get the digital copy of Minister Gan's interview? I don't subscribe to the ST online. I will append it to the post and it will be more meaningful esply for those readers who have not read the interview.
PS: Not published
Saturday, June 07, 2008
Lessons about Discrimination from the Book of St James
Hi Friends,
Introduction
Would you go to an entertainment joint eg St Jude Nuclear Station, that :
1.Allows people of certain race in for free but not for others ? Eg All Greens free but Chinese/Malays/Indians/Caucasians etc have to pay
2.Allows certain nationalities in for free but charges the rest? Eg Singoopooleans free but non-Singoopooleans like Malaysians, Indians,Singaporeans,Americans etc have to pay
3.Allows certain occupations in for free but not for others ? Eg Air Line pilots free but PAP ministers, doctors, students etc have to pay.
4.Allows free entry on certain nights for people of certain sexual orientations ? Eg Heterosexuals free but homosexuals and bisexuals and others have to pay.
5.Allows entry for those who pay but not for those who will not ? Duh!
I think most of you get the idea by now.
There are discriminations and there are discriminations
Introduction
Would you go to an entertainment joint eg St Jude Nuclear Station, that :
1.Allows people of certain race in for free but not for others ? Eg All Greens free but Chinese/Malays/Indians/Caucasians etc have to pay
2.Allows certain nationalities in for free but charges the rest? Eg Singoopooleans free but non-Singoopooleans like Malaysians, Indians,Singaporeans,Americans etc have to pay
3.Allows certain occupations in for free but not for others ? Eg Air Line pilots free but PAP ministers, doctors, students etc have to pay.
4.Allows free entry on certain nights for people of certain sexual orientations ? Eg Heterosexuals free but homosexuals and bisexuals and others have to pay.
5.Allows entry for those who pay but not for those who will not ? Duh!
I think most of you get the idea by now.
There are discriminations and there are discriminations
Most clubs already have some discriminatory entry policies such as all women nights or free entry for airline crew or even beautiful people of the “glam” circuit etc.
Most patrons find these acceptable but not when St James Power Station allowed in for free foreign tertiary students whilst charging their local counterparts.
This controversial move by St James ( before the U-turn) triggered some raw and mangled nerves. It would be instructive for everyone to know why. Why is it that certain discriminations are acceptable market practice whereas others could lead to boycotts and uproars ?
Acceptable discriminations in Singapore
My personal take is that Singapore society prides itself for its meritocracy and feels perfectly at home with discriminations based on wealth and ability. Most feel that if one does well academically or have talents in special skill-sets (music/creative industry), society would reward them with not just higher pay packets but also higher status.
But try telling these same Singaporeans that even if you are a tertiary student of a solid university (with GPA 4.0 no less), that they will be treated as second class just because their identity cards showed that they are not foreigners, they will not take it lying down! I further postulate that the uproar would be less loud if all tertiary students who are on the dean’s list got entry fee waivers. This is because one can work towards a dean’s listing or get a certain bank’s "tritalinium" credit care but one generally cannot help being a citizen of one’s nation.
If St Jude wants to charge a premium for entry? Good! I will earn that money and you let me in! If Singapore Island Country Club's membership costs $250000? Good! I will show you the money and you let me play golf on the signature championship Bukit course! (NB I will tell you how LKY forced open the white-only “race barrier” at SICC at another occasion).
Electronic Road Pricing (ERP) is also discriminatory but it has not started any riots! You want to use the road, pay lah!
Whatever it is, don’t tell me that even if I am willing to pay the sky-high price and work to be the best of the best that I am barred because I am not Green or not Singoopoolean!
So how, Dennis?
So Dennis Foo, why did you "nearly (fall) off (your) chair" when you read about the uproar over the controversial policy in the newspaper? I am surprised that you are surprised!
How about trying free entry for Dean’s list scholars or for Mensa members?
Guaranteed that there will be less uproar! But then who wants to be part of a crowd of nerds, right? Ha ha.
Back to the drawing board?!
Dr.Huang Shoou Chyuan
The S'pore nightspot's reversal comes after the press reported local students were upset that their foreign counterparts got in free while they had to pay a cover charge.
Fri, Jun 06, 2008AsiaOne
Local nightspot St James Power Station has decided to drop its unpopular door policy of waiving club entry fees for foreign tertiary students while imposing a cover charge on local ones.
The reverse in policy comes following a My Paper article on Wednesday that reported local students being upset at such a policy, which they protested as unfair and discriminatory.
Powerhouse, the nightspot's main dance room, had a sign at its door stating the policy, but it still came as a surprise to Mr Matthew Rao, 25, a National University of Singapore student, who had flashed his identity card at the door of the popular nightclub and was asked to pay the $20 cover charge. His foriegn friends, who were with him, got in for free.
"I thought the IC was for age verification, but the bouncers said I had to pay because it was proof I was Singaporean," recalled Mr Rao in the My Paper report.
"Why should foreign students get different treatment? If they live here, why shouldn't they pay as well?"
In an interview with The Strait Times Life! on Wednesday night, St James chief executive Dennis Foo said that he "nearly fell off his chair" when he read about the uproar over the controversial policy in the newspaper.
Acknowledging that "St James has erred", an apologetic Mr Foo announced that all tertiary students over 18, both local and foreign , will get in free before 11pm to its main dance club, Powerhouse, if they produce a valid student pass.
Powerhouse is opened on Wednedays, Fridays and Saturdays.
On why such a policy was introduced in the first place, Mr Foo explained: "Powerhouse, being a dance club, targets the younger set, some of whom are tertiary students.""But there are so many tertiary instituitions here. We can't offer it to all, so we chose foreign students to start with. It was also to give the place a more cosmopolitan feel."
Other nightspots
A check with other popular nightspots such as Zouk and Ministry of Sound (MOS) reveals that they do not have such nationality-specific policies in place.
Zouk, however, does offer free entry for certain credit card-holders on some nights and has industry nights such as Aircrew Night on Saturday when aircrew get free entry and 40 per cent discount on drinks.
There are no entry benefits for students there.
Over at Ministry of Sound, local students do have something to cheer about as both local and foreign students are granted free entry before 11pm on Wednesday and Thursday. MOS also offers free entry to air crew, who also get discounts on drinks at the club's Sky Lounge.As for St James' U-turn, it remains to be seen whether local students will continue frequenting the club.
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
English and frontline foreign workers: Letter to the editor
Hi Friends,
The letter was published in both Today and Mypaper on 26.5.08.
Today: click here
Mypaper: click here
Straits Times: rejected ( you can't beat them all)
I am posting it here for the records.
The Letter
Dear Editor,
Win-win solution for new (non-English speaking) service workers
I refer to the ongoing debate about foreign workers in the front-line service industry and whether English proficiency entry test should be a prerequisite.
Looking at the situation superficially, the answer seems obvious at first. As English is our lingua franca and as English proficiency is already required for new domestic maids, basic English should be required.
However, casual conversations with business owners in the food and beverage (F&B) and retail industry have convinced me that the problem is less clear cut than that. There is indeed a dearth of affordable workers and getting any worker now is difficult much less English-speaking ones. All businesses want to have workers that meet the needs of their customers. In our competitive marketplace, customers vote with their feet.
Having said that, we cannot ignore the genuine concerns of English-speaking Singaporeans who are not able to communicate effectively with these mainly new Chinese workers. Workers from the Phillipines and Vietnam etc often have higher standards of English.
May I then propose a compromise win-win solution.
Continue to allow the liberal inflow of service workers where needed, but make the passing of an English proficiency test a requirement for renewal of their working permit. I am certain that within one year (or other stipulated period), these generally educated and motivated workers will be able to upgrade themselves – either at the sponsors’ or at their own expense, and then be able to seamlessly integrate into our workforce.
The end-result will be satisfactory to all of us ie English-speaking service workers contributing to our economy; profitable businesses and an impetus for the further development of English language course industry.
Dr.Huang Shoou Chyuan
The letter was published in both Today and Mypaper on 26.5.08.
Today: click here
Mypaper: click here
Straits Times: rejected ( you can't beat them all)
I am posting it here for the records.
The Letter
Dear Editor,
Win-win solution for new (non-English speaking) service workers
I refer to the ongoing debate about foreign workers in the front-line service industry and whether English proficiency entry test should be a prerequisite.
Looking at the situation superficially, the answer seems obvious at first. As English is our lingua franca and as English proficiency is already required for new domestic maids, basic English should be required.
However, casual conversations with business owners in the food and beverage (F&B) and retail industry have convinced me that the problem is less clear cut than that. There is indeed a dearth of affordable workers and getting any worker now is difficult much less English-speaking ones. All businesses want to have workers that meet the needs of their customers. In our competitive marketplace, customers vote with their feet.
Having said that, we cannot ignore the genuine concerns of English-speaking Singaporeans who are not able to communicate effectively with these mainly new Chinese workers. Workers from the Phillipines and Vietnam etc often have higher standards of English.
May I then propose a compromise win-win solution.
Continue to allow the liberal inflow of service workers where needed, but make the passing of an English proficiency test a requirement for renewal of their working permit. I am certain that within one year (or other stipulated period), these generally educated and motivated workers will be able to upgrade themselves – either at the sponsors’ or at their own expense, and then be able to seamlessly integrate into our workforce.
The end-result will be satisfactory to all of us ie English-speaking service workers contributing to our economy; profitable businesses and an impetus for the further development of English language course industry.
Dr.Huang Shoou Chyuan
Tuesday, April 01, 2008
Singapore’s investments in UBS; Merrill Lynch; Citigroup (aka triple whammy rotten eggs ).
Hi Friends,
When Singapore’s Government Investments Corporation (GIC) and Temasek Holdings bought substantial stakes in the above three financial titans, I was genuinely proud and excited.
Wow! I believed (as did GIC and Temasek’s advisors) that such opportunities were once in a lifetime and not to be missed. This little red dot of ours would surely prove the whole world wrong!
Buy when everyone else sells; Who dares wins! ( SAS motto- I think)
However, the initial trickle of gloomy financial reports are fast becoming a flood. Jim Roger grieved “to see what Singapore is doing” and now UBS is writing down another US $19 billion! I suspect Roger’s grief may not be altogether sincere as he actually shorted investment banks in Wall Street. Hence he will benefit when these banks’ share prices went south!
Notwithstanding Roger’s true emotions, I have a sinking feeling and am beginning to think that these investments are lemons and that it will take more than my lifetime before we see any positive returns from them.
I am usually a positive-thinking kinda guy who always “looks on the bright side of life”.
But there is very little positive I can get out of this unless you consider telling those smart alecks at GIC and Temasek “I TOLD YOU SO!” as positive.
Honestly I would have preferred that that they proved the pessimists wrong. This possibility is becoming more remote by the day.
Dr.Huang Shoou Chyuan
1.UBS reveals another US$19b sub-prime drama 1 April 2008
ZURICH : Swiss bank UBS revealed a second round of subprime-related write-downs of about 19 billion dollars on Tuesday, becoming the world's worst-hit bank in the US mortgage crisis.
The latest write-down was the biggest single sub-prime hit so far worldwide, and came on top of 18.4 billion dollars (11.7 billion euros) the bank wrote down in 2007.
It will also plunge UBS, the biggest Swiss bank, into a net loss of 12 billion Swiss francs (7.6 billion euros) for the first quarter this year after loss of 4.4 billion Swiss francs in 2007, its first-ever such loss.
The bank also said it wanted to raise 15 billion Swiss francs of new capital, and that it was changing its chairman.
The last write-downs for 2007 had already forced the bank into a controversial rescue recapitalisation by a Singapore sovereign wealth fund and by an unnamed investor in the Middle East.
The overall write-downs by UBS so far of 37.4 billion dollars are far greater than those of American banks Citigroup (21.1 billion dollars in 2007) and Merrill Lynch which has booked 19.4 billion dollars in write-downs. ( read more...)
2.Investor Jim Rogers Says Singapore to Lose Money on U.S. Banks
Reuters 5 Mar 2008
SINGAPORE (Reuters) - Investment guru Jim Rogers believes that U.S. bank stocks could fall further and predicts that Singapore's state investors will lose money on their multi-billion dollar investments in Citigroup and Merrill Lynch.
"I'm shorting investment banks on Wall Street," the long-time commodities bull told reporters on Wednesday at a launch event for ABN AMRO certificates linked to commodities.
"It grieves me to see what Singapore is doing. They are going to lose money," he added, referring to investments by Government of Singapore Investment Corp and Temasek [TEM.UL] in Citigroup (C.N: Quote, Profile, Research), Switzerland's UBS (UBSN.VX: Quote, Profile, Research) and Merrill Lynch (MER.N: Quote, Profile, Research).
Rogers, an American who co-founded the Quantum Fund with billionaire George Soros in the 1970s, now lives in Singapore as he wants to raise his four-year-old daughter in an environment where she can learn Mandarin Chinese.
Rogers, who also writes investment books, said Wall Street had to work off 10 years of excesses and predicted that losses linked to risky mortgages will eventually spread to credit card bills, student loans and other debt.
(Reporting by Kevin Lim; Editing by Jan Dahinten)
When Singapore’s Government Investments Corporation (GIC) and Temasek Holdings bought substantial stakes in the above three financial titans, I was genuinely proud and excited.
Wow! I believed (as did GIC and Temasek’s advisors) that such opportunities were once in a lifetime and not to be missed. This little red dot of ours would surely prove the whole world wrong!
Buy when everyone else sells; Who dares wins! ( SAS motto- I think)
However, the initial trickle of gloomy financial reports are fast becoming a flood. Jim Roger grieved “to see what Singapore is doing” and now UBS is writing down another US $19 billion! I suspect Roger’s grief may not be altogether sincere as he actually shorted investment banks in Wall Street. Hence he will benefit when these banks’ share prices went south!
Notwithstanding Roger’s true emotions, I have a sinking feeling and am beginning to think that these investments are lemons and that it will take more than my lifetime before we see any positive returns from them.
I am usually a positive-thinking kinda guy who always “looks on the bright side of life”.
But there is very little positive I can get out of this unless you consider telling those smart alecks at GIC and Temasek “I TOLD YOU SO!” as positive.
Honestly I would have preferred that that they proved the pessimists wrong. This possibility is becoming more remote by the day.
Dr.Huang Shoou Chyuan
1.UBS reveals another US$19b sub-prime drama 1 April 2008
ZURICH : Swiss bank UBS revealed a second round of subprime-related write-downs of about 19 billion dollars on Tuesday, becoming the world's worst-hit bank in the US mortgage crisis.
The latest write-down was the biggest single sub-prime hit so far worldwide, and came on top of 18.4 billion dollars (11.7 billion euros) the bank wrote down in 2007.
It will also plunge UBS, the biggest Swiss bank, into a net loss of 12 billion Swiss francs (7.6 billion euros) for the first quarter this year after loss of 4.4 billion Swiss francs in 2007, its first-ever such loss.
The bank also said it wanted to raise 15 billion Swiss francs of new capital, and that it was changing its chairman.
The last write-downs for 2007 had already forced the bank into a controversial rescue recapitalisation by a Singapore sovereign wealth fund and by an unnamed investor in the Middle East.
The overall write-downs by UBS so far of 37.4 billion dollars are far greater than those of American banks Citigroup (21.1 billion dollars in 2007) and Merrill Lynch which has booked 19.4 billion dollars in write-downs. ( read more...)
2.Investor Jim Rogers Says Singapore to Lose Money on U.S. Banks
Reuters 5 Mar 2008
SINGAPORE (Reuters) - Investment guru Jim Rogers believes that U.S. bank stocks could fall further and predicts that Singapore's state investors will lose money on their multi-billion dollar investments in Citigroup and Merrill Lynch.
"I'm shorting investment banks on Wall Street," the long-time commodities bull told reporters on Wednesday at a launch event for ABN AMRO certificates linked to commodities.
"It grieves me to see what Singapore is doing. They are going to lose money," he added, referring to investments by Government of Singapore Investment Corp and Temasek [TEM.UL] in Citigroup (C.N: Quote, Profile, Research), Switzerland's UBS (UBSN.VX: Quote, Profile, Research) and Merrill Lynch (MER.N: Quote, Profile, Research).
Rogers, an American who co-founded the Quantum Fund with billionaire George Soros in the 1970s, now lives in Singapore as he wants to raise his four-year-old daughter in an environment where she can learn Mandarin Chinese.
Rogers, who also writes investment books, said Wall Street had to work off 10 years of excesses and predicted that losses linked to risky mortgages will eventually spread to credit card bills, student loans and other debt.
(Reporting by Kevin Lim; Editing by Jan Dahinten)
Sunday, December 02, 2007
PAP and the Economic Imperative
Will local politics change?
In the end, it is the economics that will dictate
Loh Chee Kongcheekong@mediacorp.com.sg (Today 1st Dec 07)
THE year is 2030. Now, imagine a Singapore with no Group Representative Constituencies (GRC), no defamation suits, no one-dominant party and personality.
.
This is what the young people who attended a session three weeks ago with Dr Vivian Balakrishnan seem to want. And the youngest Minister in the Cabinet seems prepared for such a scenario.
.
"I'm not so obsessed with whether or not the PAP wins elections, what I am more interested in is the quality of candidates," said Dr Balakrishnan, Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports, dismissing the suggestion that the People's Action Party (PAP) was fixated with one-party rule.
.
In fact, from a "purely national point of view", he felt that youth should even take up opposition politics if they do not want to join the PAP.
.
Responding to a comment on how the ruling party and the opposition trip over themselves in claiming credit for improvement works in opposition wards, the Minister also urged the youth to look beyond the political "wayang".
.
"The PAP plays games, the opposition plays games … while all these games go on, make sure nobody loses out.
.
"My point is not that we will not change. We will change but make sure that even as we change, that we understand the consequences … and are prepared," added Dr Balakrishnan, who reiterated that Singapore's political stability is a cornerstone of its success.
.
For a party that has forged a formidable reputation for the way it crushes political opponents, Dr Balakrishnan's words would get the optimist excited.
.
They would, at the very least, imply a tacit acceptance by the PAP that there is space for opposition politics.
.
Not so fast, said a political analyst, who applauded Dr Balakrishnan's "good statesmanship" in answering the way he did. But that is not the way the PAP "runs or plans things", she added.
.
"They play to win. If out of enlightened self-interest, the PAP changes the rules of the game then we have a whole new ball game," said the analyst.
.
Sceptics could even interpret Dr Balakrishan's answers as a clear slight on the quality of the opposition and how it would stay that way. And that if Singaporeans want more opposition in Parliament and more relaxed rules on public speaking, they have to be prepared for political instability and loss of foreign investments.
.
But the giveaway was this comment by Dr Balakrishnan: "Can we afford not to change? If the change is necessary for our survival or prosperity, then we must."
.
The political landscape is set for changes, if, and only if, the PAP Government sees their necessity in sustaining and promoting economic growth — not social progress.
.
Never mind if it means losing a few seats to the opposition as long as it serves the economic objectives. Never mind political diversity, it's the dollars and cents that matter.
.
But therein lies the conundrum. While economic and social objectives can be neatly compartmentalised in the early days of nation building, they become increasingly intertwined and untidy as a society matures.
.
From the 1960s to the 1990s, most Singaporeans had little choice but to stay and build up the Republic's economy.
.
Today, people uproot themselves to other countries when they disagree with Government policies or feel left out of the political process.
.
Which is why Singapore's political system has few options but to progress.
.
First, the playing field has to be level — a perception that is certainly lost on Singaporeans.
.
While politics is a dirty game everywhere, it has to appear to be fair and just.
.
The security sweeps — Operation Coldstore in 1963 and Operation Spectrum in the 1987 — against alleged communist movements had set back the two strongest opposition parties, the Barisan Socialis and the Workers Party, of the respective periods, albeit if it was an unintended outcome.
.
And while rules of the game apply equally to all, the opposition parties are still playing catch up while stuck in a vicious cycle: They cannot attract better candidates unless they make inroads into the government and vice versa.
.
While the elected presidency, in principle, guards against a rogue government by holding the key to the national reserves, hurdles must be put in place to prevent inept politicians from entering Parliament in the first place.
.
But such safeguards should be in the form of an independent media, strong civil society movement and Singaporeans' own critical thinking, not artificial barriers such as election deposits, the GRC system or the threat of defamation lawsuits.
.
While the GRC system was established with the stated intent of ensuring minority representation, it has inadvertently become an impediment not just for opposition parties but crucially, for aspiring independent politicians, who do not want to be tied down by the baggage of existing parties.
.
It has also deterred political competition by cutting off smaller political parties, while allowing larger ones to consolidate themselves.
.
In the 1984 elections (the last General Election before the GRC system was introduced), candidates from nine political parties and three independent candidates contested the polls.
.
In the 2006 GE, candidates contested under four party banners and there were zero independent candidates.
.
Given such statistics, it is not difficult to draw a link between these artificial hurdles and why fewer young Singaporeans are willing to enter politics — when their choice is limited to joining the PAP to have a more than half chance of winning.
.
By Dr Balakrishnan's own admission, "politics in 2030 cannot be politics in the 1960s".
.
"In 2030, if you are the Prime Minister, do you think you would have the same authority, overarching stature of someone like our Minister Mentor Lee (Kuan Yew)?" he added.
.
The days of personality-driven politics are long gone and future electoral battles would be about national policies as much as local politics. Opposition politicians banking on fiery rhetoric should be advised to back it up with sound policy alternatives.
.
The implications of a "collegiate" type of leadership, as Dr Balakrishnan put it, point to a more effective consultation process both within and without the government.
.
When no one person wields an inordinate amount of influence, diversity of views would flourish but it also makes it harder to push through policies — an argument that the PAP has made in support of one-party rule.
.
But while efficiency could be increasingly compromised, effectiveness need not. And that can only be ensured when there is a healthy process of political debate and consensus building, where opposing voices are satisfied that they have been heard even if the final decision goes against them.
.
The Government's aggressive drive for new citizens would pose political ramifications in time to come.
.
While these citizens would want to preserve the state of affairs that attracted them here in the first place, they are also the ones who would not be tied down by historical baggage when the situation turns for the worse.
.
In other words, in the event of a national crisis, new citizens would be the quickest to vote the government out, while Singapore-born voters bank their faith on the PAP's track record.
.
Which is why the PAP may find it worth its while to lose a few seats in the future — if only to keep an increasingly sophisticated electorate happy.
My comments:
The Economic Imperative
Introduction
Loh Chee Kong has done all of us a favour by getting Dr.Balakrishnan to crystalise for us the government’s bottomline for political change.
If Balakrishnan is to be believed (and I do know him to be an honorable man- after all he is a medical doctor), and if he does indeed speak on behalf of the PAP’s stalwarts, then true political plurality may not be a pipe dream. And hopefully it may not be far away.
Economic imperative in Medicine
If we take the medical sphere as an example, the Ministry of Health has more or less removed barriers against advertisements for medical services. For many years, doctors could not even mention their specialties in newspaper interviews as this would be misconstrued as advertising which was deemed unprofessional. The thinking then was that if one was good, one’s reputation amongst peers would naturally attract referrals.
In recent years, doctors get the unwritten message that so long as an action helps Singapore become a medical hub, it would not be frowned upon (unless it is blatantly stupid or unethical). In other words, so long as the economic imperative is served, almost anything is possible.
Obsession with economic imperative
I have also heard that a certain elderly man is still as obsessed about Singapore’s economic survival as before. He still goes around scouting for talented Singaporeans to recruit into his fold. The aim again is the economic imperative. Somehow it is hard to imagine this elderly man saying as Balakrishnan has said, “"I'm not so obsessed with whether or not the PAP wins elections…” Maybe those close to this man should mention that Rousseau said, “If Sparta and Rome perished, what state can hope to endure forever?”
If Words not matched by Deeds = Hollow words?
Assuming that the whole leadership thinks like Balakrishnan ( just that some dare not speak as openly as he for reasons of self-preservation), there is a dis-connect between their words ( or intentions) and their deeds.
If opposition politics of the less boisterous sort, could in the long term be helpful from a “purely national point of view”, why use rules and laws to prevent the organization of seemingly innocuous activities such as the WP outdoor cycling event?
Ministers should know by now that they can talk all they want, but only when their actions match those words, these words will forever ring hollow.
Anyway, Loh Chee Kong, nice piece of journalism. We look forward to more from our journalists.
Cheers
Dr.Huang Shoou Chyuan
In the end, it is the economics that will dictate
Loh Chee Kongcheekong@mediacorp.com.sg (Today 1st Dec 07)
THE year is 2030. Now, imagine a Singapore with no Group Representative Constituencies (GRC), no defamation suits, no one-dominant party and personality.
.
This is what the young people who attended a session three weeks ago with Dr Vivian Balakrishnan seem to want. And the youngest Minister in the Cabinet seems prepared for such a scenario.
.
"I'm not so obsessed with whether or not the PAP wins elections, what I am more interested in is the quality of candidates," said Dr Balakrishnan, Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports, dismissing the suggestion that the People's Action Party (PAP) was fixated with one-party rule.
.
In fact, from a "purely national point of view", he felt that youth should even take up opposition politics if they do not want to join the PAP.
.
Responding to a comment on how the ruling party and the opposition trip over themselves in claiming credit for improvement works in opposition wards, the Minister also urged the youth to look beyond the political "wayang".
.
"The PAP plays games, the opposition plays games … while all these games go on, make sure nobody loses out.
.
"My point is not that we will not change. We will change but make sure that even as we change, that we understand the consequences … and are prepared," added Dr Balakrishnan, who reiterated that Singapore's political stability is a cornerstone of its success.
.
For a party that has forged a formidable reputation for the way it crushes political opponents, Dr Balakrishnan's words would get the optimist excited.
.
They would, at the very least, imply a tacit acceptance by the PAP that there is space for opposition politics.
.
Not so fast, said a political analyst, who applauded Dr Balakrishnan's "good statesmanship" in answering the way he did. But that is not the way the PAP "runs or plans things", she added.
.
"They play to win. If out of enlightened self-interest, the PAP changes the rules of the game then we have a whole new ball game," said the analyst.
.
Sceptics could even interpret Dr Balakrishan's answers as a clear slight on the quality of the opposition and how it would stay that way. And that if Singaporeans want more opposition in Parliament and more relaxed rules on public speaking, they have to be prepared for political instability and loss of foreign investments.
.
But the giveaway was this comment by Dr Balakrishnan: "Can we afford not to change? If the change is necessary for our survival or prosperity, then we must."
.
The political landscape is set for changes, if, and only if, the PAP Government sees their necessity in sustaining and promoting economic growth — not social progress.
.
Never mind if it means losing a few seats to the opposition as long as it serves the economic objectives. Never mind political diversity, it's the dollars and cents that matter.
.
But therein lies the conundrum. While economic and social objectives can be neatly compartmentalised in the early days of nation building, they become increasingly intertwined and untidy as a society matures.
.
From the 1960s to the 1990s, most Singaporeans had little choice but to stay and build up the Republic's economy.
.
Today, people uproot themselves to other countries when they disagree with Government policies or feel left out of the political process.
.
Which is why Singapore's political system has few options but to progress.
.
First, the playing field has to be level — a perception that is certainly lost on Singaporeans.
.
While politics is a dirty game everywhere, it has to appear to be fair and just.
.
The security sweeps — Operation Coldstore in 1963 and Operation Spectrum in the 1987 — against alleged communist movements had set back the two strongest opposition parties, the Barisan Socialis and the Workers Party, of the respective periods, albeit if it was an unintended outcome.
.
And while rules of the game apply equally to all, the opposition parties are still playing catch up while stuck in a vicious cycle: They cannot attract better candidates unless they make inroads into the government and vice versa.
.
While the elected presidency, in principle, guards against a rogue government by holding the key to the national reserves, hurdles must be put in place to prevent inept politicians from entering Parliament in the first place.
.
But such safeguards should be in the form of an independent media, strong civil society movement and Singaporeans' own critical thinking, not artificial barriers such as election deposits, the GRC system or the threat of defamation lawsuits.
.
While the GRC system was established with the stated intent of ensuring minority representation, it has inadvertently become an impediment not just for opposition parties but crucially, for aspiring independent politicians, who do not want to be tied down by the baggage of existing parties.
.
It has also deterred political competition by cutting off smaller political parties, while allowing larger ones to consolidate themselves.
.
In the 1984 elections (the last General Election before the GRC system was introduced), candidates from nine political parties and three independent candidates contested the polls.
.
In the 2006 GE, candidates contested under four party banners and there were zero independent candidates.
.
Given such statistics, it is not difficult to draw a link between these artificial hurdles and why fewer young Singaporeans are willing to enter politics — when their choice is limited to joining the PAP to have a more than half chance of winning.
.
By Dr Balakrishnan's own admission, "politics in 2030 cannot be politics in the 1960s".
.
"In 2030, if you are the Prime Minister, do you think you would have the same authority, overarching stature of someone like our Minister Mentor Lee (Kuan Yew)?" he added.
.
The days of personality-driven politics are long gone and future electoral battles would be about national policies as much as local politics. Opposition politicians banking on fiery rhetoric should be advised to back it up with sound policy alternatives.
.
The implications of a "collegiate" type of leadership, as Dr Balakrishnan put it, point to a more effective consultation process both within and without the government.
.
When no one person wields an inordinate amount of influence, diversity of views would flourish but it also makes it harder to push through policies — an argument that the PAP has made in support of one-party rule.
.
But while efficiency could be increasingly compromised, effectiveness need not. And that can only be ensured when there is a healthy process of political debate and consensus building, where opposing voices are satisfied that they have been heard even if the final decision goes against them.
.
The Government's aggressive drive for new citizens would pose political ramifications in time to come.
.
While these citizens would want to preserve the state of affairs that attracted them here in the first place, they are also the ones who would not be tied down by historical baggage when the situation turns for the worse.
.
In other words, in the event of a national crisis, new citizens would be the quickest to vote the government out, while Singapore-born voters bank their faith on the PAP's track record.
.
Which is why the PAP may find it worth its while to lose a few seats in the future — if only to keep an increasingly sophisticated electorate happy.
My comments:
The Economic Imperative
Introduction
Loh Chee Kong has done all of us a favour by getting Dr.Balakrishnan to crystalise for us the government’s bottomline for political change.
If Balakrishnan is to be believed (and I do know him to be an honorable man- after all he is a medical doctor), and if he does indeed speak on behalf of the PAP’s stalwarts, then true political plurality may not be a pipe dream. And hopefully it may not be far away.
Economic imperative in Medicine
If we take the medical sphere as an example, the Ministry of Health has more or less removed barriers against advertisements for medical services. For many years, doctors could not even mention their specialties in newspaper interviews as this would be misconstrued as advertising which was deemed unprofessional. The thinking then was that if one was good, one’s reputation amongst peers would naturally attract referrals.
In recent years, doctors get the unwritten message that so long as an action helps Singapore become a medical hub, it would not be frowned upon (unless it is blatantly stupid or unethical). In other words, so long as the economic imperative is served, almost anything is possible.
Obsession with economic imperative
I have also heard that a certain elderly man is still as obsessed about Singapore’s economic survival as before. He still goes around scouting for talented Singaporeans to recruit into his fold. The aim again is the economic imperative. Somehow it is hard to imagine this elderly man saying as Balakrishnan has said, “"I'm not so obsessed with whether or not the PAP wins elections…” Maybe those close to this man should mention that Rousseau said, “If Sparta and Rome perished, what state can hope to endure forever?”
If Words not matched by Deeds = Hollow words?
Assuming that the whole leadership thinks like Balakrishnan ( just that some dare not speak as openly as he for reasons of self-preservation), there is a dis-connect between their words ( or intentions) and their deeds.
If opposition politics of the less boisterous sort, could in the long term be helpful from a “purely national point of view”, why use rules and laws to prevent the organization of seemingly innocuous activities such as the WP outdoor cycling event?
Ministers should know by now that they can talk all they want, but only when their actions match those words, these words will forever ring hollow.
Anyway, Loh Chee Kong, nice piece of journalism. We look forward to more from our journalists.
Cheers
Dr.Huang Shoou Chyuan
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
Singapore's inflation rate- Worse to come?
Hi Friends,
Of late, we have had a slew of shocking news about inflation rates hitting 16-year highs and even political leaders confirming that this would peak at 5 per cent early 2008.
This comes as no surprise to any of us. External factors like the US $100 oil barrels coupled with recent GST hikes to 7% and increased ERP rates of up to $5 (third hike in 2007,no less), must inevitably translate to higher costs of doing business and hence higher prices.
The mismatch in the supply and demand of residential and commercial properties certainly did not help to keep rentals down!
What is worrying is that most of us see this as only the beginning of an unhealthy upward trend and are not as confident as our leaders that this can be managed as planned.
In the recent parliamentary debate, the people were advised to choose cheaper alternatives to minimise the impact of rising prices. That is almost like Marie Antoinette, the Queen of France during the French Revolution saying,” Let them eat cake” when told that the peasants did not have any more bread!
Uncontrolled inflation arouses the spectre of hyperinflation like that of inter-war Germany ( see here & here) in the 1920’s. A loaf of bread that cost 2 marks in 1920, cost 430,000,000,000 (ten zeroes) marks in 1923. In pubs, Germans found that their second beer cost twice as much as their first, as prices rose hourly. When paid three times a day, workers hurried with their wheelbarrows of ever-depreciating currency to spend at the grocery before prices rose further. Those social upheavals were just what Hitler needed to get elected into power.
I admit that my anxiety is slightly exaggerated, but it is real. As are the concerns of our lower income citizens, who must once bear the brunt of yet another financial burden.
Dr. Huang Shoou Chyuan
Of late, we have had a slew of shocking news about inflation rates hitting 16-year highs and even political leaders confirming that this would peak at 5 per cent early 2008.
This comes as no surprise to any of us. External factors like the US $100 oil barrels coupled with recent GST hikes to 7% and increased ERP rates of up to $5 (third hike in 2007,no less), must inevitably translate to higher costs of doing business and hence higher prices.
The mismatch in the supply and demand of residential and commercial properties certainly did not help to keep rentals down!
What is worrying is that most of us see this as only the beginning of an unhealthy upward trend and are not as confident as our leaders that this can be managed as planned.
In the recent parliamentary debate, the people were advised to choose cheaper alternatives to minimise the impact of rising prices. That is almost like Marie Antoinette, the Queen of France during the French Revolution saying,” Let them eat cake” when told that the peasants did not have any more bread!
Uncontrolled inflation arouses the spectre of hyperinflation like that of inter-war Germany ( see here & here) in the 1920’s. A loaf of bread that cost 2 marks in 1920, cost 430,000,000,000 (ten zeroes) marks in 1923. In pubs, Germans found that their second beer cost twice as much as their first, as prices rose hourly. When paid three times a day, workers hurried with their wheelbarrows of ever-depreciating currency to spend at the grocery before prices rose further. Those social upheavals were just what Hitler needed to get elected into power.
I admit that my anxiety is slightly exaggerated, but it is real. As are the concerns of our lower income citizens, who must once bear the brunt of yet another financial burden.
Dr. Huang Shoou Chyuan
Saturday, August 18, 2007
Greedy landlord + helpless tenant = UGLY SINGAPOREAN
Signed and sealed with a handshake, yet no deal
(ST Forum 18.8.07)
AMID the hot property market, both in rental and sale, my search for a place to rent has exposed unethical behaviour on the part of both agents and landlords.
When I first moved to Singapore in 2002, looking for a place to rent was a hassle-free process.
Sure, often places I liked were out of my price range, but that was to be expected. At least a price was cited at the beginning and if you accepted it, you provided a letter of intent and a cheque. You shook hands and the deal was done.
Not so anymore. I have been looking for a new place to rent for the past couple of months after my landlord increased the rent 400 per cent. Not once, but three times, have I looked at a place, accepted the stated price, signed a letter of intent, shaken hands, and handed over a cheque, only to receive a phone call from the agent or landlord that the price had gone up.
My family has wasted a tremendous amount of time and energy running around the island, meeting agents and going back with our chequebooks, only to be told that they were negotiating with other people on the side the entire time.
I am upset by such unethical behaviour. An eye-to-eye agreement with a firm handshake is now meaningless.
It saddens me in particular that this is often done deliberately, with agents and landlords making deals with several people at the same time, demanding signatures and cheques from them, and then making a selection.
Hence, we are still homeless, even though we are willing to lower our standards significantly in terms of both size and style, move farther out of the city, and pay twice or triple what we currently pay in rent.
Perhaps at this rate we should just move out of Singapore as it is increasingly becoming a less attractive place to live in. If many expatriates do likewise, what will happen to real-estate values?
Laura Thornton-Olivry (Ms)
My comments
Hi Friends,
I want to comment on this note-worthy letter in today’s forum page.
Laura was alluding to how landlords are not honoring the prospective tenants' letters of intent. An even worse scenario than this is becoming common. Existing tenants are being asked to vacate their homes with nothing more than two months' notice from their landlords!
Background
The relative shortage of rentable apartments has led to a dangerous situation. We can thank the ridiculous “en-bloc” fever and the buoyant economy for this.
The rentals have gone out of the world and it is not just market forces of “supply and demand” that is causing the greatest harm to Singapore’s reputation as an economically competitive nation. The behaviors of the landlords are also responsible.
Let me say that mine is not a case of sour grapes. I have had at different times been a landlord and tenant and I do know what is and is not acceptable behavior. It used to be that the tenancy agreements are 2+2 or 1+1 ( ie 2 years tenancy with option for additional 2 years etc) and only after the initial 2 years or 1 year ( as the case may be) is over, that the landlord will raise the rentals or get new tenants after the old have left.
Unreasonable behavior of landlords
In the recent race of the rentals to the stars, I have been told that landlords now just give existing tenants 2 months’ notice to vacate and that is that. Apparently, there is no need to prove that the tenant had not lived up to his part of the tenancy agreement and hence had violated a contract. The tenant is literally being “kicked” out. He has no right to seek any recourse and he then becomes just another house-hunter. He is at the mercy of the “wolf-like” greed of the landlords!
In my many years as a landlord and tenant, I have never seen any clause ( not even in microscopic fine print) that allows such an unequal treatment of any of the parties.
Unequal treatment under the tenancy contract
Just let the tenant try to leave the lease prematurely and see what happens? Other than giving legitimate reasons such as citing the “diplomatic clause” that he is leaving Singapore -having been sacked or repatriated (even then it can be terminated only at least after 12 months) , the tenant would most likely be unable to break the contract without compensating the landlord.
What is the tenancy agreement for and what is the point in getting it stamped and scrutinised by lawyers and going through a seemingly useless ritual, when the tenant can be kicked out at the whim and fancy of any greedy landlord? Any legal eagles want to comment?
The greed of our countrymen is causing great harm to Singapore’s reputation as a affordable place for foreigners to live and work in.
The market will find its own solution ( it always does)
I am a firm believer that in the “free market” a rational equilibrium would be found sooner or later by market forces. But I still find such conduct quite unbelievable and abhorent.
The natural outcome would be that foreigners will increasingly stay outside of the city and District 9,10,11 or even in HDB estates. Or their companies would just set up shop in KL or elsewhere. People are not THAT stupid!
Cheers
Dr.Huang Shoou Chyuan
(ST Forum 18.8.07)
AMID the hot property market, both in rental and sale, my search for a place to rent has exposed unethical behaviour on the part of both agents and landlords.
When I first moved to Singapore in 2002, looking for a place to rent was a hassle-free process.
Sure, often places I liked were out of my price range, but that was to be expected. At least a price was cited at the beginning and if you accepted it, you provided a letter of intent and a cheque. You shook hands and the deal was done.
Not so anymore. I have been looking for a new place to rent for the past couple of months after my landlord increased the rent 400 per cent. Not once, but three times, have I looked at a place, accepted the stated price, signed a letter of intent, shaken hands, and handed over a cheque, only to receive a phone call from the agent or landlord that the price had gone up.
My family has wasted a tremendous amount of time and energy running around the island, meeting agents and going back with our chequebooks, only to be told that they were negotiating with other people on the side the entire time.
I am upset by such unethical behaviour. An eye-to-eye agreement with a firm handshake is now meaningless.
It saddens me in particular that this is often done deliberately, with agents and landlords making deals with several people at the same time, demanding signatures and cheques from them, and then making a selection.
Hence, we are still homeless, even though we are willing to lower our standards significantly in terms of both size and style, move farther out of the city, and pay twice or triple what we currently pay in rent.
Perhaps at this rate we should just move out of Singapore as it is increasingly becoming a less attractive place to live in. If many expatriates do likewise, what will happen to real-estate values?
Laura Thornton-Olivry (Ms)
My comments
Hi Friends,
I want to comment on this note-worthy letter in today’s forum page.
Laura was alluding to how landlords are not honoring the prospective tenants' letters of intent. An even worse scenario than this is becoming common. Existing tenants are being asked to vacate their homes with nothing more than two months' notice from their landlords!
Background
The relative shortage of rentable apartments has led to a dangerous situation. We can thank the ridiculous “en-bloc” fever and the buoyant economy for this.
The rentals have gone out of the world and it is not just market forces of “supply and demand” that is causing the greatest harm to Singapore’s reputation as an economically competitive nation. The behaviors of the landlords are also responsible.
Let me say that mine is not a case of sour grapes. I have had at different times been a landlord and tenant and I do know what is and is not acceptable behavior. It used to be that the tenancy agreements are 2+2 or 1+1 ( ie 2 years tenancy with option for additional 2 years etc) and only after the initial 2 years or 1 year ( as the case may be) is over, that the landlord will raise the rentals or get new tenants after the old have left.
Unreasonable behavior of landlords
In the recent race of the rentals to the stars, I have been told that landlords now just give existing tenants 2 months’ notice to vacate and that is that. Apparently, there is no need to prove that the tenant had not lived up to his part of the tenancy agreement and hence had violated a contract. The tenant is literally being “kicked” out. He has no right to seek any recourse and he then becomes just another house-hunter. He is at the mercy of the “wolf-like” greed of the landlords!
In my many years as a landlord and tenant, I have never seen any clause ( not even in microscopic fine print) that allows such an unequal treatment of any of the parties.
Unequal treatment under the tenancy contract
Just let the tenant try to leave the lease prematurely and see what happens? Other than giving legitimate reasons such as citing the “diplomatic clause” that he is leaving Singapore -having been sacked or repatriated (even then it can be terminated only at least after 12 months) , the tenant would most likely be unable to break the contract without compensating the landlord.
What is the tenancy agreement for and what is the point in getting it stamped and scrutinised by lawyers and going through a seemingly useless ritual, when the tenant can be kicked out at the whim and fancy of any greedy landlord? Any legal eagles want to comment?
The greed of our countrymen is causing great harm to Singapore’s reputation as a affordable place for foreigners to live and work in.
The market will find its own solution ( it always does)
I am a firm believer that in the “free market” a rational equilibrium would be found sooner or later by market forces. But I still find such conduct quite unbelievable and abhorent.
The natural outcome would be that foreigners will increasingly stay outside of the city and District 9,10,11 or even in HDB estates. Or their companies would just set up shop in KL or elsewhere. People are not THAT stupid!
Cheers
Dr.Huang Shoou Chyuan
Friday, July 13, 2007
Waiter, this food tastes like paper!
Hi Friends,
I used to think that fellows who complained about their food were just overly fussy.
Being from a frugal family, I had been taught by my parents to eat whatever was laid on the table for if I did not, the rumour was that I would be punished with a pock-marked wife. I have insisted that my kids do the same. Till now, that is.
Now it turns out that whenever someone complains that the food tastes like paper, or “dung” or that the meat is a tad soggy, he may be literally meaning just that. Especially if the food is from China.
Card board “buns” are just the latest in the list of horrific stories coming out from this the newest and most-feared economic power. We already know about the slaves.
About the “dung”…in the last few weeks, farmers were found to have force-fed pigs with waste-water just before they were led to the slaughter at the abattoir. This last meal before their “execution” were to increase their weight which would ultimately translate to increased profits for the farmers.
In yet another case, water was injected into pigs’ carcasses (also to increase literally the “deadweight”).
If you are skeptical of these reports ( as I was) and attribute them to China’s economic rivals trying to sully her reputation in order to slow her economic progress, think again!
There is no smoke without fire!
Might not this be the end-result of crass materialism? If the almighty dollar is the “be all and end all” of our lives , I fear that we are not far behind China in becoming a soul-less society where “dog eat dog” and anything ( and I mean anything) is permissible so long as it helps us climb up the economic food chain!
Xiao Long Pao anyone?
Dr.Huang Shoou Chyuan
Chinese food 'made from cardboard'
(CNN 12 July 07)
BEIJING, China (AP) -- Chopped cardboard, softened with an industrial chemical and flavored with fatty pork and powdered seasoning, is a main ingredient in batches of steamed buns sold in one Beijing neighborhood, state television said.
The report, aired late Wednesday on China Central Television, highlights the country's problems with food safety despite government efforts to improve the situation.
Countless small, often illegally run operations exist across China and make money cutting corners by using inexpensive ingredients or unsavory substitutes. They are almost impossible to regulate.
State TV's undercover investigation features the shirtless, shorts-clad maker of the buns, called baozi, explaining the contents of the product sold in Beijing's sprawling Chaoyang district.
Baozi are a common snack in China, with an outer skin made from wheat or rice flour and and a filling of sliced pork. Cooked by steaming in immense bamboo baskets, they are similar to but usually much bigger than the dumplings found on dim sum menus familiar to many Americans.
The hidden camera follows the man, whose face is not shown, into a ramshackle building where steamers are filled with the fluffy white buns, traditionally stuffed with minced pork.
The surroundings are filthy, with water puddles and piles of old furniture and cardboard on the ground.
"What's in the recipe?" the reporter asks. "Six to four," the man says.
"You mean 60 percent cardboard? What is the other 40 percent?" asks the reporter. "Fatty meat," the man replies.
The bun maker and his assistants then give a demonstration on how the product is made.
Squares of cardboard picked from the ground are first soaked to a pulp in a plastic basin of caustic soda -- a chemical base commonly used in manufacturing paper and soap -- then chopped into tiny morsels with a cleaver.
Fatty pork and powdered seasoning are stirred in.
Soon, steaming servings of the buns appear on the screen. The reporter takes a bite.
"This baozi filling is kind of tough. Not much taste," he says. "Can other people taste the difference?"
"Most people can't. It fools the average person," the maker says. "I don't eat them myself."
The police eventually showed up and shut down the operation.
I used to think that fellows who complained about their food were just overly fussy.
Being from a frugal family, I had been taught by my parents to eat whatever was laid on the table for if I did not, the rumour was that I would be punished with a pock-marked wife. I have insisted that my kids do the same. Till now, that is.
Now it turns out that whenever someone complains that the food tastes like paper, or “dung” or that the meat is a tad soggy, he may be literally meaning just that. Especially if the food is from China.
Card board “buns” are just the latest in the list of horrific stories coming out from this the newest and most-feared economic power. We already know about the slaves.
About the “dung”…in the last few weeks, farmers were found to have force-fed pigs with waste-water just before they were led to the slaughter at the abattoir. This last meal before their “execution” were to increase their weight which would ultimately translate to increased profits for the farmers.
In yet another case, water was injected into pigs’ carcasses (also to increase literally the “deadweight”).
If you are skeptical of these reports ( as I was) and attribute them to China’s economic rivals trying to sully her reputation in order to slow her economic progress, think again!
There is no smoke without fire!
Might not this be the end-result of crass materialism? If the almighty dollar is the “be all and end all” of our lives , I fear that we are not far behind China in becoming a soul-less society where “dog eat dog” and anything ( and I mean anything) is permissible so long as it helps us climb up the economic food chain!
Xiao Long Pao anyone?
Dr.Huang Shoou Chyuan
Chinese food 'made from cardboard'
(CNN 12 July 07)
BEIJING, China (AP) -- Chopped cardboard, softened with an industrial chemical and flavored with fatty pork and powdered seasoning, is a main ingredient in batches of steamed buns sold in one Beijing neighborhood, state television said.
The report, aired late Wednesday on China Central Television, highlights the country's problems with food safety despite government efforts to improve the situation.
Countless small, often illegally run operations exist across China and make money cutting corners by using inexpensive ingredients or unsavory substitutes. They are almost impossible to regulate.
State TV's undercover investigation features the shirtless, shorts-clad maker of the buns, called baozi, explaining the contents of the product sold in Beijing's sprawling Chaoyang district.
Baozi are a common snack in China, with an outer skin made from wheat or rice flour and and a filling of sliced pork. Cooked by steaming in immense bamboo baskets, they are similar to but usually much bigger than the dumplings found on dim sum menus familiar to many Americans.
The hidden camera follows the man, whose face is not shown, into a ramshackle building where steamers are filled with the fluffy white buns, traditionally stuffed with minced pork.
The surroundings are filthy, with water puddles and piles of old furniture and cardboard on the ground.
"What's in the recipe?" the reporter asks. "Six to four," the man says.
"You mean 60 percent cardboard? What is the other 40 percent?" asks the reporter. "Fatty meat," the man replies.
The bun maker and his assistants then give a demonstration on how the product is made.
Squares of cardboard picked from the ground are first soaked to a pulp in a plastic basin of caustic soda -- a chemical base commonly used in manufacturing paper and soap -- then chopped into tiny morsels with a cleaver.
Fatty pork and powdered seasoning are stirred in.
Soon, steaming servings of the buns appear on the screen. The reporter takes a bite.
"This baozi filling is kind of tough. Not much taste," he says. "Can other people taste the difference?"
"Most people can't. It fools the average person," the maker says. "I don't eat them myself."
The police eventually showed up and shut down the operation.
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
Landed properties should not be priced out of Singaporeans' reach
Hi Friends,
Another "Dear Editor" letter:
Dear Editor,
There has been disturbing talk in the media recently that the restrictions on foreigners buying landed homes in Singapore could be relaxed.
I hope the authorities would quickly nip this rumour in the bud before there is too much public disquiet.
Goldman Sachs (Singapore) is lobbying for the rescindment of the Residential Property Act, which has since 1973, restricted foreigners and permanent residents from owning landed residential property without prior official approval.
Goldman Sachs argues that this change would serve as a catalyst for further foreign buying of private homes and boost the current residential property up-cycle. To further support this argument, it implies that Singaporeans already have a stake in the country by virtue of the public housing catering to 80% of us.
I doubt anyone in Singapore really feel that the property market would require any more encouragement. If anything, the reverse is probably true and the authorities are probably contemplating measures to cool the red-hot market to a more sustainable level. Goldman Sach’s part about public housing also sounds a tad condescending to me!
Hence I agree firmly with the industry’s opinion leaders who are quoted to be mostly against this proposal.
Charles Chong, chairman Government Parliamentary Committee (National Development and Environment) was quoted as saying, "Landed properties should not be priced out of Singaporean's reach (or) it could lead to disgruntled Singaporeans”.
Others had said that the existing Act has the positive effect of "encourage(ing) foreigners to commit to Singapore, to sink their roots here" and that landed property ownership is one of the “privilege(s) of being Singaporean”.
In Pearl S Buck’s “The Good Earth” the protagonist Wang Lung chided his sons when he overheard them talking about selling the land which he had loved so much. He said “…if you sell the land, it is the end”
Can the relevant authorities please comment?
Dr.Huang Shoou Chyuan
Time to open the gates?
(Today 26.6.07)
Lift curbs on sale of landed properties to foreigners, says Goldman Sachs
Joseph Yadao
joseph.yadao@mediacorp.com.sg
.
IN THE eyes of some, at least, there may never be a better time to slaughter one of the sacred cows of the landed home market.
.
The idea of owning a nest in Singapore is becoming increasingly attractive to foreigners. The Government, too, has been effusive in its efforts to draw foreign talent here to build the economy.
.
So why not relax restrictions on the sale of landed property to foreigners — and satisfy both needs at one go?
.
Making this controversial proposal in a report released on Sunday, Goldman Sachs — one of the world's largest investment banks — cited suggestive figures.
.
The proportion of foreigners buying private homes here climbed to 26 per cent in the first quarter of the year, up from 21 per cent in 2005. But as of May, foreigners were involved in only 8 per cent of landed property transactions this year — compared with 29 per cent of apartment transactions. The average price of a top-end bungalow falls short of that of a luxury condominium unit by about 35 per cent.
.
"We think this price gap could narrow to parity, or very close to it, should restrictions on foreign ownership be relaxed," said the report, adding that "foreigners would like the flexibility of greater housing choice and the positive signal of Singapore's open door policy emanating from such a move".
.
But the argument will be a thorny one for the Republic to swallow, given the socio-political barbs of such a move. And going by industry players' reactions, the debate is likely to remain an academic one.
.
Since 1973, the Residential Property Act has restricted foreigners and permanent residents from owning private residential property without prior official approval — and for good reason.
.
"The restrictions on foreign ownership of landed property is unlikely to be eased because it is an emotional issue. It involves (putting) a tangible, physical part of Singapore in foreign hands," said Mr Colin Tan, director for research and development at Chesterton International.
.
"Landed properties should not be priced out of Singaporean's reach (or) it could lead to disgruntled Singaporeans, which would be a cause of concern for the Government," said Mr Charles Chong, chairman of the Government Parliamentary Committee for National Development and Environment.
.
Even so, a concession was made in 2004 for Sentosa Cove (picture), where potential foreign buyers were given fast-track approval. Of the 36 landed transactions at Sentosa Cove, 44 per cent involved foreigners. A seaview bungalow plot within the luxury enclave set the record at $1,308 per square foot.
.
But that is most unlikely to herald any universal lifting of control over landed property ownership in Singapore, say property analysts.
.
Goldman Sachs argues in its report that removing such restrictions would not hurt the national objective "of giving Singaporeans a stake in the country"; neither would it price them out of the market.
.
It reasoned that the public housing market met the needs of 80 per cent of Singaporeans by making affordable homes available. The report also conceded that any policy change could be limited to selected types of landed property, such as good-class bungalows.
.
But Mr Ku Swee Yong, director of marketing and business development at Savills Singapore, argued that the influx of buyers would give landed property owners the upper hand in this land-scarce environment. "It would be a sellers' market. This will definitely have an immediate impact on prices," he said.
.
According to forecasts released by property firm CB Richard Ellis yesterday, home prices are estimated to have risen by 4 to 6 per cent between April and June, and they are expected to climb by another 3 to 5 per cent. One driving factor: The limited supply of new homes in the $600 to $800 psf price range.
.
Mr Nicholas Mak, Knight Frank's director of research and consultancy, said: "Prior to the Residential Property Act, rich Indonesians snapped up properties, pricing Singaporeans out of the market. Today, high-end property prices are up. That is starting to filter down to the mid-tier properties."
.
He added that keeping certain privileges of home ownership for citizens only "encourages foreigners to commit to Singapore, to sink their roots here".
.
Chesterton's Mr Tan added: "Some things have to be preserved for Singaporeans. Landed property ownership is one of them. It is the privilege of being Singaporean."
Another "Dear Editor" letter:
Dear Editor,
There has been disturbing talk in the media recently that the restrictions on foreigners buying landed homes in Singapore could be relaxed.
I hope the authorities would quickly nip this rumour in the bud before there is too much public disquiet.
Goldman Sachs (Singapore) is lobbying for the rescindment of the Residential Property Act, which has since 1973, restricted foreigners and permanent residents from owning landed residential property without prior official approval.
Goldman Sachs argues that this change would serve as a catalyst for further foreign buying of private homes and boost the current residential property up-cycle. To further support this argument, it implies that Singaporeans already have a stake in the country by virtue of the public housing catering to 80% of us.
I doubt anyone in Singapore really feel that the property market would require any more encouragement. If anything, the reverse is probably true and the authorities are probably contemplating measures to cool the red-hot market to a more sustainable level. Goldman Sach’s part about public housing also sounds a tad condescending to me!
Hence I agree firmly with the industry’s opinion leaders who are quoted to be mostly against this proposal.
Charles Chong, chairman Government Parliamentary Committee (National Development and Environment) was quoted as saying, "Landed properties should not be priced out of Singaporean's reach (or) it could lead to disgruntled Singaporeans”.
Others had said that the existing Act has the positive effect of "encourage(ing) foreigners to commit to Singapore, to sink their roots here" and that landed property ownership is one of the “privilege(s) of being Singaporean”.
In Pearl S Buck’s “The Good Earth” the protagonist Wang Lung chided his sons when he overheard them talking about selling the land which he had loved so much. He said “…if you sell the land, it is the end”
Can the relevant authorities please comment?
Dr.Huang Shoou Chyuan
Addendum (5th July 07):
The above letter was printed in both the Straits Times and Today. The "gahmen" has also replied thus:
Landed homes: No plans to ease foreign ownership (30 June 07)
I REFER to the letter by Dr Huang Shoou Chyuan ('Landed homes: Don't ease curbs on foreigners'; ST, June 28) on the recent report by Goldman Sachs suggesting a review of the Residential Property Act to relax restrictions on foreigners buying landed property.
On June 28, the Ministry of Law spokesperson announced that there are no plans to liberalise the existing system. In land- scarce Singapore, landed properties have to be treated as a special category where purchases by foreigners are subject to special approval.
Radha S. Khoo (Ms) Head (Corporate Communications) Ministry of Law
Please read the related article below:
Time to open the gates?
(Today 26.6.07)
Lift curbs on sale of landed properties to foreigners, says Goldman Sachs
Joseph Yadao
joseph.yadao@mediacorp.com.sg
.
IN THE eyes of some, at least, there may never be a better time to slaughter one of the sacred cows of the landed home market.
.
The idea of owning a nest in Singapore is becoming increasingly attractive to foreigners. The Government, too, has been effusive in its efforts to draw foreign talent here to build the economy.
.
So why not relax restrictions on the sale of landed property to foreigners — and satisfy both needs at one go?
.
Making this controversial proposal in a report released on Sunday, Goldman Sachs — one of the world's largest investment banks — cited suggestive figures.
.
The proportion of foreigners buying private homes here climbed to 26 per cent in the first quarter of the year, up from 21 per cent in 2005. But as of May, foreigners were involved in only 8 per cent of landed property transactions this year — compared with 29 per cent of apartment transactions. The average price of a top-end bungalow falls short of that of a luxury condominium unit by about 35 per cent.
.
"We think this price gap could narrow to parity, or very close to it, should restrictions on foreign ownership be relaxed," said the report, adding that "foreigners would like the flexibility of greater housing choice and the positive signal of Singapore's open door policy emanating from such a move".
.
But the argument will be a thorny one for the Republic to swallow, given the socio-political barbs of such a move. And going by industry players' reactions, the debate is likely to remain an academic one.
.
Since 1973, the Residential Property Act has restricted foreigners and permanent residents from owning private residential property without prior official approval — and for good reason.
.
"The restrictions on foreign ownership of landed property is unlikely to be eased because it is an emotional issue. It involves (putting) a tangible, physical part of Singapore in foreign hands," said Mr Colin Tan, director for research and development at Chesterton International.
.
"Landed properties should not be priced out of Singaporean's reach (or) it could lead to disgruntled Singaporeans, which would be a cause of concern for the Government," said Mr Charles Chong, chairman of the Government Parliamentary Committee for National Development and Environment.
.
Even so, a concession was made in 2004 for Sentosa Cove (picture), where potential foreign buyers were given fast-track approval. Of the 36 landed transactions at Sentosa Cove, 44 per cent involved foreigners. A seaview bungalow plot within the luxury enclave set the record at $1,308 per square foot.
.
But that is most unlikely to herald any universal lifting of control over landed property ownership in Singapore, say property analysts.
.
Goldman Sachs argues in its report that removing such restrictions would not hurt the national objective "of giving Singaporeans a stake in the country"; neither would it price them out of the market.
.
It reasoned that the public housing market met the needs of 80 per cent of Singaporeans by making affordable homes available. The report also conceded that any policy change could be limited to selected types of landed property, such as good-class bungalows.
.
But Mr Ku Swee Yong, director of marketing and business development at Savills Singapore, argued that the influx of buyers would give landed property owners the upper hand in this land-scarce environment. "It would be a sellers' market. This will definitely have an immediate impact on prices," he said.
.
According to forecasts released by property firm CB Richard Ellis yesterday, home prices are estimated to have risen by 4 to 6 per cent between April and June, and they are expected to climb by another 3 to 5 per cent. One driving factor: The limited supply of new homes in the $600 to $800 psf price range.
.
Mr Nicholas Mak, Knight Frank's director of research and consultancy, said: "Prior to the Residential Property Act, rich Indonesians snapped up properties, pricing Singaporeans out of the market. Today, high-end property prices are up. That is starting to filter down to the mid-tier properties."
.
He added that keeping certain privileges of home ownership for citizens only "encourages foreigners to commit to Singapore, to sink their roots here".
.
Chesterton's Mr Tan added: "Some things have to be preserved for Singaporeans. Landed property ownership is one of them. It is the privilege of being Singaporean."
Tuesday, April 03, 2007
Singapore Medical Association’s Guideline of Fees (GOF) Withdrawal: Patients now have less protection!
Withdrawal of SMA Guidelines of Fees (GOF)
Singapore, April 2, 2007 – The Singapore Medical Association (SMA) announced at its Annual General Meeting on April 1, 2007 that the Association is withdrawing its Guideline of Fees (GOF) with immediate effect. This decision by the 47th SMA Council was made after it received indications that the SMA GOF might run the risk of contravening Section 34 (2)(a) of the Competition Act and also after the Council had sought advice from five of its seven Honorary Legal Advisers.
The GOF was first introduced in 1987 with the aim to protect patients from being overcharged and to equip them with knowledge on medical procedures in hope that with improved knowledge there would be lesser cases of misunderstandings. It helped doctors with an indication of the current rates and how much to charge their patients. The guideline was the result of the collaboration of the Singapore Medical Association and the Association of Private Medical Practitioners of Singapore (APMPS) in response to the Health Ministry’s call for a guide on medical charges.
To date there have been four editions of the GOF (1987, 1992, 2001 and 2006).
My comments:
Dear Friends,
This is not a sick April Fool’s joke.
I found out about this from an email sent to SMA’s members only last night and it is all in the papers today.
The marketplace
There are various known relationships with respect to suppliers and consumers in the marketplace.
Those familiar with Economics 101 will know of Perfect Competition; Monopolies; Monopolistic competition; Oligopolies and others.
Perfect competition (PC): Eg Salt/sugar. There are many suppliers/ low entry and exit barriers/suppliers are price takers/homogenous products. Ie consumers have much choice and if supplier tries to be funny and raise the price even by 2 %, the consumer will buy from the next guy.
Monopoly: eg Singapore power / PAP govt ( serious!) : Only 1 supplier/price maker/ unique product/high entry and exit barrier. Take it or leave it. I say this product cost $1 million dollars- if you want you got to rob and steal and then buy it from me only.
Monopolistic competition/ Oligopolies: I do not have time to elaborate but these are variations of PC and monopoly.
Others: The doctor and patient relation is under this category.
Asymmetric Information: The doctor (supplier) in the relationship holds all the cards, as he has the knowledge that the patient ( consumer) requires . The patient depends on the advice of the doctor. If the doctor says that he requires a tonsillectomy, the patient usually has to accept it unless he makes an effort to get a second opinion ( or surfs the net).
Hence in a situation where there is unequal power relationship (eg with asymmetric info), self-regulation is crucial or else the consumer will get fleeced.
Self-regulators are usually appointed by or encouraged by the authorities to keep its members in line so that there is no profiteering nor exploitation of the public who do not know better.
The SMA’s Guideline of Fees was formulated for this very purpose. ( see above)
Beside consultation charges, surgical fees are also included in the GOF. The surgery fees are more of less grouped similarly to the Ministry of Health’s Table of Surgical Procedures (TOSP) (Groups A-G vs Tables 1-7) which determines how much of the patient’s Medisave can be claimed for the said procedures and hospital admissions.
Types of surgeries are grouped according to degree of complexity. A range of fee is then suggested for each of these groups. It is not a price-fixing attempt and only serves as a guide. Doctors are allowed to go above or below it.
Implications for patients with withdrawal of GOF
From now on, when asked about charges, doctors can tell their patients with a straight face (and with hand on heart) that there is no guideline.Period. The fee is such and such and that he does not know whether his charges are high or low with respect to other similar specialists.
The patient would then have to decide either to seek a second opinion and then go through the whole process of consultation again or else accept the doctor’s offer for treatment and hope that he has not been overcharged.
In the event that a patient does complain to the Singapore Medical Council (SMC) that he feels that he has been overcharged, SMC is in no position whatsoever to decide whether the charge is reasonable or not, short of surveying all the specialists doing that particular surgery and then get the mean/median or any other statistical method that it feels will help determine the fairness of the charge.
In the past, SMC just picks up the latest GOF and if everything else in the complaint have been dealt with, will usually reply to the patient that yes or no, the fee was unreasonable or reasonable as the case may be.
PTC and other regulatory bodies
Public Transport Council is an example of a regulatory body set out to protect the consumer who is at the mercy of companies who run our public transport system. I know some skeptics who think the PTC behaves like a cartel with official sanction.
Even oligopolies in the communication industry (Singtel/M1/Starhub) are regulated in some ways by their respective regulatory bodies.
Although SMA ( as contrasted to SMC) is a voluntary association of doctors, which de-facto had taken on some self-regulating functions of the medical profession.
With SMA surrendering this role, SMC will be hard-pressed to come up with some measure to assess the fairness of the doctors’ pricing of services.
At the end of the day, I can only say that there is less protection for patients as there is now worse asymmetry of information. Some doctors may be wringing their handsin anticipation, thinking that there is now no longer any need to follow any guidelines and they can charge as high as they think the patients are willing to pay. Maximise the consumer surplus ( as economists will say)
My honest opinion is that the SMA's decision is ill-advised and hasty. And wrong!
( Author's note (7.30 am 4th April)- SMA President Dr. Wong Chiang Yin has clarified in the Today Newspaper: "It was, in effect, a choice of scrap the guideline now — or cough up $200,000 for a decision from the Competition Commission of Singapore that might simply lead to the same result.
Getting guidance alone from the Competition Commission to file paperwork would have cost $20,000, while getting a decision would have cost the non-profit organisation $30,000. In addition, the SMA would have had to cough up some $150,000 in legal fees."
In view of the new fact, I agree that the SMA was between the rock and a hard place and has no choice but to act as it had. The conspiracy theorists are having a field day! More exciting than Kieffer Sutherland's "24"!)
The GOF is not a cartel's attempt at price-fixing. We do not monitor members' pricing policies ala OPEC. There is no collusion and the doctors do not meet in dark alleys and smoky corridors conspiring to fix the consumers. Far from it. The GOF actually serves as a psychological barrier to doctors who want to charge fees far in excess of the guidelines as when they are put under the microscope ( eg SMC/ Insurance companies), they would have to justify why they are an outlier!
Sigh! Try to be good doctor, also difficult. Maybe should just mind my own business and make the big bucks whilst the sun still shines.
Addendum 3rd April 07 9pm:
Ways of resolving assymetric information includes:
1.Mandatory disclosure- useful only if information can be objectively verified
( also not useful if I tell the patient my price for Procedure A is $1000. So what? There is no way to compare unless he goes and call up another 10 doctors to find out their prices)
2.Regulation of conduct- eg "cooling off" period. But we don't force patients to decide on the spot anyway. At least I don't. We are not selling "timeshare" !
3.Regulation by self ( doctors association) or by higher authority- but that is the exact thing that SMA has decided against.
The question is : Can we ask SMC ( being a govt-appointed body) to take over the function of a price watchdog?
Another question: Does the Law Society still have a recommended scale of fees for legal services? So bodies like PTC is ok but SMA's GOF not?
Singapore, April 2, 2007 – The Singapore Medical Association (SMA) announced at its Annual General Meeting on April 1, 2007 that the Association is withdrawing its Guideline of Fees (GOF) with immediate effect. This decision by the 47th SMA Council was made after it received indications that the SMA GOF might run the risk of contravening Section 34 (2)(a) of the Competition Act and also after the Council had sought advice from five of its seven Honorary Legal Advisers.
The GOF was first introduced in 1987 with the aim to protect patients from being overcharged and to equip them with knowledge on medical procedures in hope that with improved knowledge there would be lesser cases of misunderstandings. It helped doctors with an indication of the current rates and how much to charge their patients. The guideline was the result of the collaboration of the Singapore Medical Association and the Association of Private Medical Practitioners of Singapore (APMPS) in response to the Health Ministry’s call for a guide on medical charges.
To date there have been four editions of the GOF (1987, 1992, 2001 and 2006).
My comments:
Dear Friends,
This is not a sick April Fool’s joke.
I found out about this from an email sent to SMA’s members only last night and it is all in the papers today.
The marketplace
There are various known relationships with respect to suppliers and consumers in the marketplace.
Those familiar with Economics 101 will know of Perfect Competition; Monopolies; Monopolistic competition; Oligopolies and others.
Perfect competition (PC): Eg Salt/sugar. There are many suppliers/ low entry and exit barriers/suppliers are price takers/homogenous products. Ie consumers have much choice and if supplier tries to be funny and raise the price even by 2 %, the consumer will buy from the next guy.
Monopoly: eg Singapore power / PAP govt ( serious!) : Only 1 supplier/price maker/ unique product/high entry and exit barrier. Take it or leave it. I say this product cost $1 million dollars- if you want you got to rob and steal and then buy it from me only.
Monopolistic competition/ Oligopolies: I do not have time to elaborate but these are variations of PC and monopoly.
Others: The doctor and patient relation is under this category.
Asymmetric Information: The doctor (supplier) in the relationship holds all the cards, as he has the knowledge that the patient ( consumer) requires . The patient depends on the advice of the doctor. If the doctor says that he requires a tonsillectomy, the patient usually has to accept it unless he makes an effort to get a second opinion ( or surfs the net).
Hence in a situation where there is unequal power relationship (eg with asymmetric info), self-regulation is crucial or else the consumer will get fleeced.
Self-regulators are usually appointed by or encouraged by the authorities to keep its members in line so that there is no profiteering nor exploitation of the public who do not know better.
The SMA’s Guideline of Fees was formulated for this very purpose. ( see above)
Beside consultation charges, surgical fees are also included in the GOF. The surgery fees are more of less grouped similarly to the Ministry of Health’s Table of Surgical Procedures (TOSP) (Groups A-G vs Tables 1-7) which determines how much of the patient’s Medisave can be claimed for the said procedures and hospital admissions.
Types of surgeries are grouped according to degree of complexity. A range of fee is then suggested for each of these groups. It is not a price-fixing attempt and only serves as a guide. Doctors are allowed to go above or below it.
Implications for patients with withdrawal of GOF
From now on, when asked about charges, doctors can tell their patients with a straight face (and with hand on heart) that there is no guideline.Period. The fee is such and such and that he does not know whether his charges are high or low with respect to other similar specialists.
The patient would then have to decide either to seek a second opinion and then go through the whole process of consultation again or else accept the doctor’s offer for treatment and hope that he has not been overcharged.
In the event that a patient does complain to the Singapore Medical Council (SMC) that he feels that he has been overcharged, SMC is in no position whatsoever to decide whether the charge is reasonable or not, short of surveying all the specialists doing that particular surgery and then get the mean/median or any other statistical method that it feels will help determine the fairness of the charge.
In the past, SMC just picks up the latest GOF and if everything else in the complaint have been dealt with, will usually reply to the patient that yes or no, the fee was unreasonable or reasonable as the case may be.
PTC and other regulatory bodies
Public Transport Council is an example of a regulatory body set out to protect the consumer who is at the mercy of companies who run our public transport system. I know some skeptics who think the PTC behaves like a cartel with official sanction.
Even oligopolies in the communication industry (Singtel/M1/Starhub) are regulated in some ways by their respective regulatory bodies.
Although SMA ( as contrasted to SMC) is a voluntary association of doctors, which de-facto had taken on some self-regulating functions of the medical profession.
With SMA surrendering this role, SMC will be hard-pressed to come up with some measure to assess the fairness of the doctors’ pricing of services.
At the end of the day, I can only say that there is less protection for patients as there is now worse asymmetry of information. Some doctors may be wringing their handsin anticipation, thinking that there is now no longer any need to follow any guidelines and they can charge as high as they think the patients are willing to pay. Maximise the consumer surplus ( as economists will say)
My honest opinion is that the SMA's decision is ill-advised and hasty. And wrong!
( Author's note (7.30 am 4th April)- SMA President Dr. Wong Chiang Yin has clarified in the Today Newspaper: "It was, in effect, a choice of scrap the guideline now — or cough up $200,000 for a decision from the Competition Commission of Singapore that might simply lead to the same result.
Getting guidance alone from the Competition Commission to file paperwork would have cost $20,000, while getting a decision would have cost the non-profit organisation $30,000. In addition, the SMA would have had to cough up some $150,000 in legal fees."
In view of the new fact, I agree that the SMA was between the rock and a hard place and has no choice but to act as it had. The conspiracy theorists are having a field day! More exciting than Kieffer Sutherland's "24"!)
The GOF is not a cartel's attempt at price-fixing. We do not monitor members' pricing policies ala OPEC. There is no collusion and the doctors do not meet in dark alleys and smoky corridors conspiring to fix the consumers. Far from it. The GOF actually serves as a psychological barrier to doctors who want to charge fees far in excess of the guidelines as when they are put under the microscope ( eg SMC/ Insurance companies), they would have to justify why they are an outlier!
Sigh! Try to be good doctor, also difficult. Maybe should just mind my own business and make the big bucks whilst the sun still shines.
Addendum 3rd April 07 9pm:
Ways of resolving assymetric information includes:
1.Mandatory disclosure- useful only if information can be objectively verified
( also not useful if I tell the patient my price for Procedure A is $1000. So what? There is no way to compare unless he goes and call up another 10 doctors to find out their prices)
2.Regulation of conduct- eg "cooling off" period. But we don't force patients to decide on the spot anyway. At least I don't. We are not selling "timeshare" !
3.Regulation by self ( doctors association) or by higher authority- but that is the exact thing that SMA has decided against.
The question is : Can we ask SMC ( being a govt-appointed body) to take over the function of a price watchdog?
Another question: Does the Law Society still have a recommended scale of fees for legal services? So bodies like PTC is ok but SMA's GOF not?
Dr.Huang Shoou Chyuan
Friday, March 23, 2007
Poor politicians and civil servants
Hi friends,
I am sure all of us do not want our civil servants and political leaders to go hungry.
Or be tempted to line their pockets with ill-gotten gains like corrupt third world politicians that we hear about ad nauseum.
But no right-thinking person looking at the salary-scale of our ministers and civil servants will likely feel that they are hard done by.
If I am not wrong, our politicians get many times the salaries of first world politicians. The main argument for such astronomical remunerations has been that these American and European presidents and ministers get rewarded after they leave office. They even write books, give talks to rich audiences and get invited to sit on exotic company boards! Shocking!
I wonder if ex-Singapore politicians do any of the aforementioned after they leave office?
Cheers
Dr.Huang Shoou Chyuan
Addendum:
My rebutal to the YoungPAP's views on this policy (see below)- these comments were from my comments page
Hi youngpap,
It is regrettable that the PAP/government is not able to persuade the ablest and best to serve the people on the platform and basis of public service. Instead the only way to secure these loyalties is the time-honored method – Greed and the love of money! There is NO sacrifice unlike what we have been told.
Idealism in any form is dead and buried in Singapore and pragmatism and “looking after oneself” is the name of the game. If even the young people of the Youngpap cannot see the false dichotomies and fallacies in the govt’s logic, we the people of Singapore do not have much to look forward to when these young people go on to be our future leaders.
It is the realm of “groupthink” when you the YoungPAP all begin to believe that Singapore is unique, our leaders are unique and that they should be uniquely rewarded. That we are so vulnerable that to have an independent media would cause our collapse and that to have freedom of expression and other freedoms like freedom of association and assembly would lead to our inevitable demise. Ironically, I hope in time to come, when the young people of Singapore ( including you in the YoungPAP) see more of the world, you will realize that some values like fairness,equality, freedom are universal and we should not be afraid to have them.
There is much that is good and admirable in our system, but self-serving and selfish policies like this when our own political leaders use the system to reward themselves beyond reasonable limits is not one of them. I hope some in the YoungPAP will see the insanity in this and begin to form your own individual opinions of some of these unfair policies.
Dr.Huang
(end of rebutal)
YoungPaP's post on this issue
http://youngpapblog.blogspot.com/2007/03/bill-gatesgeorge-sorosmother-theresa.html
Bill Gates+George Soros+Mother Theresa - How Much $$
Posted by elaina olivia chong at 4:56 PM
Money is the proverbial carrot. No matter how many people put themselves on the moral high ground, Money still talks for most others. If you want to get a job done you can’t do well yourself, pay some one well to do it well. If you want to get a job superbly well done, pay superbly more. Similarly, if we want Singapore to stay on the “Best Of” world list for a lot of things, we jolly well got to pay top dollar for the best people who can keep us right up there.
I can’t see why some forumers in our local chatrooms are questioning Ministerial pay rises and pegging our Minister’s pay to those in other countries. Spore isn’t like many other economies like the States, Britain or even Hong Kong where their economies can still remain alive even if their politicians are not making the best decisions. Not only are these economies self sufficient, they have people resources - to the extent where Supply far Exceeds Demand for geniuses at the top.
In many of these first world nations (whose Ministers’ pays have been “pegged” to ours), their economic engines are matured and almost self-piloting. These governments have inherited the fruits of their political forefathers and are now able to concentrate on improving the social and non-economic welfares of its peoples and say, spend time to build international relations with countries like us.
This government put Singapore, a country with no resources, with no historical ties or allies to begin with, on the world map in less than half a century. But will this last forever?
It takes more than a few good men to make a tiny red dot like Singapore a shining star it is today. Not an easy feat, and is not a task that every man on the street can do. Only the very best in the 4-5million we have, can.
Everyday is a new challenge for Singapore to stay competitive and ahead of economies thousands of times our size. If Ministers at the top stop what their doing; or aren’t clever enough to devise policies to keep us ahead of the global league, our economy will crumble. There’s no two ways about it. Some one has got to do it and able to do it very well.
Today, we have the PAP with a number of good men. Will we have the same people tomorrow and always? I’m not sure. I find it rather myopic and sadly presumptuous for so many of these forumers to assume that Singapore is forever going to be where it is, and that we will forever have exceptional geniuses willing to throw their lives to keep Singapore on its feet.
How many of our capable Singaporeans are willing to turn away high paying expatriate positions overseas? And choose instead, to stay home in Singapore, hold arms to protect and ensure the economic comforts for our families and posterity?
One of the ways and I'm not saying it is the only way, is to pay for them and pay them very well . To help keep them in Singapore, attract them into civil service or the PAP where they will join the “economic militia” and keep the Singapore flag flying high for a very long time
The life of a Minister is not attractive. How many are willing to sacrifice every evening either at Meet the People Sessions, chairing Review Committees and carrying another baby in a HDB kopitiam even on precious weekends?
A platoon with the acumen of Bill Gates, risk appetite of George Soros and the heart of Mother Theresa, I would think. And the compensation? Priceless. Haven’t we all heard this all too often, “Pay Peanuts Get Monkeys".
All that matters to me is for Singapore to stay ahead of the game becuase I choose to stay here. We sorely need more than a few Good Men to continue serving at the top so that our economy will continue its bull run. With a flourishing economy, Ministerial pay increments will pale in comparison to the prosperities and fortunes Singapore will be able to bring to its people. Because then, the man on their street will get his pay raise too.
Changes to Civil Service salaries to be announced on April 9
Channelnewsasia Mar 22
Civil service salaries are set to go up and details of this will be announced in Parliament on the 9th of April.
The salary review will be explained by Mr Teo Chee Hean who is the Minister-in-Charge of Civil Service matters in the Prime Minister's Office.
This was revealed by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong at the Administrative Service dinner on Thursday.
In his speech, Mr Lee said the government is also reviewing salaries for the political, judicial and statutory appointment holders.
He added that it is critical for
The Prime Minister arrived at the Administrative Dinner with a clear message for his audience.
He said
And for the public service to remain an attractive employer, it must keep pace with the private sector.
The Prime Minister noted that salaries in the private sector have been progressing, with many good and well-paying jobs created in the last two years.
And demand for Singaporeans is not just coming from the local economy.
Mr Lee said: "We know from head-hunters that the entire top managements of some of our agencies are being targeted. The Middle Eastern countries are particularly interested. They have studied
"Even foreign workers who have worked in
Mr Lee explained that there are two private sector salary benchmarks for the Administrative Service.
The lowest Superscale grade is where officers in the early to mid-30s enter the senior ranks.
For this group, the benchmark has climbed again but not for the second benchmark which is for the most senior Permanent Secretaries.
For this senior group, the yardstick is based on two-thirds of the median income of the eight top-earning professionals in six professions.
The private sector benchmark now stands at $2.2 million.
But in the Administrative Service, the salaries for this category has remained the same as the level in the year 2000.
It stands at $1.21 million, which is 55 percent of the private sector salaries.
Mr Lee said: "This is an urgent problem. We have experienced on previous occasions the painful consequences of responding too slowly when the private sector surged ahead. For example in the early 1990s, the Administrative Service lost entire cohorts of good officers. This showed up in the age profile of the Service - broad at the young and older age groups, but narrow at the mid- to late-30s range. We took many years to recover from the loss. This must not happen again.
"This is why the government is currently reviewing Civil Service remuneration schemes. The review will cover the Administrative Service as well as other services that are lagging behind the private sector, because every service is important, and each must be able to attract and retain good people."
Mr Lee reminded the Administrative Service officers that what they do affect how Singaporeans work, live and play.
And if everyone does their job well, the result will be a
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)