Isn't Thailand So Much More of a Democracy than Singapore?

Despite potentially undermining the reputation of his country's reputation as a safe opportunity for foreign investment, Gen. Sonthi not too long declared that he wanted to reverse the sale of Shin Corp from Thai hands into the portfolio of Temasek Holdings, an investment arm of the government of Singapore.

In spite of the military fashion in which he displaced Thaksin Shinawatra, the way Sonthi seems to be going about trying to get back the telecommunications assets seems to be very democratic. Just today, there is news that "Thailand to poll nation on reclaiming satellites from Singapore." It is not sure what sort of poll is going to be conducted, whether it is going to be a national referendum or whether it is just going to be a survey conducted by sampling a subsection of the population to determine the Thai people's sentiments.

Yet, even if the poll is not a full-scale national referendum, the process in which the decision is going to be made is surprisingly democratic, in many ways much more democratic than one might expect from Singapore.

Whatever the case, it appears Temasek's investment in Shin Corp has turned out to be a disaster. And the lessons Singapore can learn are not just to be careful with what may turn out to be politically explosive, it is also a lesson that Singapore's version of democracy is just one that is unlikely to work in various jurisdictions - Thaksin who declared he wanted to follow Singapore's model has been ousted, and Gen. Sonthi's process seems to be working much more effectively.

Young Foreign Talent in Singapore

Mr Wang has an interesting post about foreign kids coming to Singapore to enjoy education subsidies, where he laments that these are not the kind of "foreign talent" that Singaporeans want, because the foreign kids pack up and leave after finishing their secondary education, and do not contribute to the country after having received the education subsidies.

Instead, he implies in his argument that the focus on foreign talent should be on bringing in talent and expertise that Singapore lacks, and that Singaporeans themselves are not able to provide, an example being Darrell Metzger.

While these are interesting points made by Mr Wang, I do not think that the main problem lies in the 'importing' of young kids into Singapore. Rather, I think that the real challenge lies in making Singapore a place where people will be happy to settle down and consider home, after having spent their primary and secondary education years here.

Consider, for example, the US, where many foreign students enrol and later on, stay in the country and take up citizenship - the situation is different from Singapore because the US is a much nicer place to stay after you have completed your education because there are bountiful opportunities to pursue your ambitions, and there is an active political culture where citizens have a real say in how their country is run.

Singapore, in contrast, is a country dominated by one political party, where freedom of expression is curtailed, and where a political culture is deemed as a threat to the nation. It is difficult for individuals to be motivated to take up residence here when there is little opportunity to feel like you have played a real part in shaping the nation. Furthermore, for males, there is the question of having to do national service, and then reservist for many years after that. The job opportunities are also restricted, compared to a place like the United States.

As such, while we may never expect to be able to provide the same kind of opportunities that a country like the USA can, we can endeavour to make our country a much more attractive place to live in (than it currently is), and that retains the young talent that we 'import.'

Such measures can include

1. an opening up of the political culture such that the young are able to feel a sense of ownership in the country - this not only encourages young foreign talent to hang around to shape the nation in which they have spent their childhood, it also encourages Singaporeans to stick around instead of emigrating.
2. heightened recognition for the sacrifices that Singaporean men make to defend and protect their country - both monetary and non-monetary. Indeed, national service can not only be made less of a chore, it can even be transformed from a liability into an experience that Singaporean male (and foreign immigrant) can be proud of.
3. a recognition that alternative lifestyles, other than the typical doctor/lawyer/accountant/engineer are not only feasible, but are worthy of respect and dignity. The skewed technocratic mindset of the government has resulted in a rather elitist view of certain professions, to the exclusion of others. Unlike other countries where you can work at McDonalds and still be treated with dignity, Singaporeans seem to treat 'lesser occupations' with less respect. A broadening of mindset to recognise alternative occupations will go a long way in welcoming those who might otherwise be discouraged to hang around.
   

These measures are not exhaustive, i'm sure they are only the beginning. And while they cannot guarantee that the young foreign talent will definitely stick around, it does greatly increase the chance that they will. And instead of stopping the influx of 'young foreign talent' completely, we can bring them into our society and assimilate them as people who may one day be proud to be called Singaporean.

Sonthi wants Shin Corp Back

Sonthi, the military leader who led the coup to topple Thaksin Shinawatra, has declared that he wants the telecommunications assets which were sold to Singapore's Temasek Holdings back in Thai hands.

Singapore's MFA, has started "seeking clarification," while Thailand's MFA has said the issue will "fade away." But I think the issue will fester, and will not "fade away."

1. This huge multi-billion dollar tangle shows that Temasek Holdings has too much capital on its hands. As its reserves have grown and grown, Singapore has to look in more and more places to invest its money; without the huge glut of capital, Temasek would probably have never had the need to buy a set of (politically sensitive) Thailand's prized national assets in order to grow its money. With more than S$100 billion under management, Temasek should seriously consider returning a decent amount of its equity to its shareholders i.e. the government of Singapore, and hence forth to the people of Singapore.

2. Even if the investment was made on a "purely financial basis" as the ministry of finance has claimed, Singapore cannot ignore the fact that any transaction of this sort of scale and that involves major political figures DOES have political ramifications. And, the fact that Temasek is owned by the ministry of finance and hence the government of Singapore means that it WILL be perceived by foreign bodies to be politically linked and controlled.

Whether Ho Ching likes it or not, she MUST consider in depth the political implications of her actions, and declaring that her investments are made "purely as financial investments" is simply giving bad excuses to avoid what has to be done on her job.

Indeed, knowing that Ho Ching's father-in-law likes Thaksin, it is no wonder that foreigners perceive that Temasek bought Thaksin's assets as a way of giving him an avenue to cash out. Whether or not there is politics going on behind the scenes (and yes, there probably is), Temasek will always be perceived as a political arm of the government, and never as an independent, privately owned company that is just concerned with the profit motive.

3. Why is Singapore's MFA getting involved in the incident? If Shin Corp is 'purely a financial investment' and Temasek and 'independent arm', what has the MFA to do with Sonthi's comment? Indeed, MFA's statement that it is 'surprised,' clearly demonstrates that there is more involved here than just a 'financial investment' - politicians are getting involved in 'private' business affairs.

4. Technically, Sonthi can roll in the tanks and take over Shin Corp by brute force. And should he? Maybe he should. That will teach the Singaporean politicians a good, hard-learnt lesson.

5. Of course, that doesn't mean that i endorse seizing assets which have been 'lawfully sold' and acquired - Sonthi's actions are probably not endorseable within a legal context. But given how Temasek and Thaksin have angered Thais by their insensitive and selfish actions, it shouldn't be much of a surprise that this hoo-ha has happened.

A Small Victory for Bloggers: Why the Counter Insurgency is an Admission of the Power of New Media

Recently, there has been a big hooha over a recent article in the Straits Times that said that the government was going to launch a "counter-insurgency" by sending anonymous pro-PAP cyber commandos into the internet to counter critics of the government.

Since many have said their piece, I will not give my opinion on whether I think their plan will work. Rather, I wish to declare this a small victory for bloggers, and explain why I think the balance of media power is shifting, slowly but surely, from the hands of a dominant PAP towards a landscape where there is freedom of speech and equal opportunity for all.

1. The PAP now has to play on the internet on fair and equal terms. They no longer exert the monopoly of publishing on the web that they do in print media. On the internet, the PAP, WP, SDP and any other tom, dick or harry who wants to make a political comment has an equal opportunity to be heard.

2. In fact, the PAP is now at a distinct disadvantage. Because they cannot depend on their control of the medium, they now have to depend on the quality of the message. In the press, the lack of a competitive voice means that the PAP can skew and manipulate their messages in any way they like, without fear of reprisal and behing criticised on the spot. The internet, however is different:

• Any blog post that is put up by a PAP member can be instantly replied to on another blog by another blogger.
• Any comment left on a blog by a PAP member can be instantly replied to by other commenters.
• The internet is dominated by independent bloggers who are far ahead in experience, skill and prominence compared to PAP 'counter-insurgents'.
• Opposition parties have already been using this medium for many years, and will at least have an equal opportunity of expression. This is a far cry from broadcast TV and newspapers where the opposition has little say, if any.
  

3. The internet is rapidly growing in influence, and has already established itself as the dominant media for the young - in the not too distant future, it will have the ability to challenge the mainstream press and broadcast media as an equally powerful, if not more powerful, voice.

And because the PAP is playing catch-up, as highlighted in point 2, it stands to lose out in the race to claim ground on the new battlefield that is the world wide web. Instead, this is a great opportunity for bloggers and 'insurgents' to race ahead and to further cement their lead.

Conclusion
For too long already, the media have been dominated by the political machine that is the PAP. It is time for media in Singapore to be a much fairer playing field where different political voices, both partisan and independent, can have their say.

Bloomberg by Bloomberg: 3 Simple Lessons for Entrepreneurs and Businessmen

This was first written for SG Entrepreneurs

“Bloomberg by Bloomberg” was written in 1997 by Michael Bloomberg, founder of Bloomberg LP, the financial information service provider that provides financial institutions and media companies with business and financial news and information. Mr. Bloomberg has since gone on to become the Mayor of New York City, but the principles that the banker, entrepreneur and politician espouses in the book that he wrote a decade ago still ring true for entrepreneurs and businessmen today.

Simple Truth No 1: Business is, first and foremost, about people

Many people think that business is about cutting costs, driving innovation, developing a strong brand, or creating efficient supply chains. Or they might think it’s about optimizing cash flow, managing growth, or outmaneuvering the competition. Yes, business is very often about all these things. However, before considering all these operational issues, business is, first and foremost, about people.

“…our main asset is not our technology, our databases, our proprietary communications network, or even our clients.
It is our employees.” - p.63

It is the business leaders and entrepreneurs who best understand how to identify, motivate and value talent, who will most succeed. It is the managers who best understand that their most valuable asset is the team which works with them, which will get ahead. Hence, it is no surprise that Bloomberg declares:

“The primary function of those at the top is the care and feeding of the company’s most valuable asset, its employees…” - p.180

This is because a business which consists of a well organised team of talented individuals led by an inspirational leader will be the one which can best come up with creative ways to cut costs, drive innovation, develop a strong brand, or create an efficient supply chain. And the businesses which get bogged down by corporate red tape, politicking, and poor morale, will find themselves least likely to outmaneuver the competition.

Bloomberg reiterates the value of having a great team:

“The leverage a great team provides makes management a fantastic investment for a company’s stockholders, but phenomenally overpriced when the executives can’t get the organization to perform.” - p.180

Indeed, the importance of having great people in an organisation cannot be understated. No matter what business you are in, no matter which country you operate, a business will rise and fall according to the quality of its people.

Simple Truth No 2: Entrepreneurial Success is 1% planning, 99% execution

“If you’re going to succeed, you need a vision, one that’s affordable, practical, and fills a customer need. Then, go for it. Don’t worry too much about the details. Don’t second-guess your creativity. Avoid overanalyzing the new project’s potential. Most importantly, don’t strategize about the long term too much.” - p.43

Too often, people with good ideas get bogged down worrying about how their brilliant ideas are going to pan out. Or they get thrown off their paths by ‘advisors’ who tell them to plan months, even years ahead, before jumping into the fray. Or they may get caught in the trap of ‘analysis paralysis,’ where they spend time analysing the potential of their ideas at the expense of getting things done.

The problem with focusing too much on planning is that often, entrepreneurial enterprises are operating in fields where there is much technological change and flux, or where the competitive landscape is uncertain. Planning cannot accurately anticipate or foresee the pitfalls and challenges that lie ahead, neither can it give foreknowledge of the opportunities that will present themselves when an entrepreneur starts getting things done.

Conversely, the entrepreneur who starts working on his project right away jumps into the fray and gets miles ahead of his competitors because he solves problems that his competitors do not foresee and capitalizes on opportunities which are not available to those who are stuck in the planning stage.

Bloomberg mentions,

“Fortunately, our competitors never work this way. They study. They plan. They work toward getting consensus and approval and closure. They try to define it all up front, even specifying the end game from the beginning. Ridiculous!” - p.145

There is much wisdom to the Nike slogan, “Just Do It.” Businesses which focus on execution will get much further than those that wield about grand plans and visions, but are unable to get things done.

Simple Truth No. 3: No Guts, No Go.

In part of his book, Bloomberg narrates an account about a person on his original team who bailed out of the business on day two. The person cited too much risk and too little return as the reason for bailing out of the newly formed enterprise. Years later, that same person has had a mediocre career, while Bloomberg and the original founders have become wealthy beyond their wildest dreams.

This account illustrates that entrepreneurs need guts and courage to take the risks necessary to become successful. It takes a strong stomach and ballsy character to jump into the unknown without the certainty that you will succeed.

This truth is perhaps the most relevant within the Singaporean context, where children are schooled from a very young age to take the safe route of studying hard, getting good grades, getting a high paid job, and retiring at the age of 60. Getting Singaporeans to sacrifice the certainty of the traditional route for the risk and uncertainties of the entrepreneurial lifestyle requires a radical shift in our cultural values and a re-programming of our mindsets.

One thing is for sure, that without taking the risks, you cannot reap the rewards. Bloomberg’s wife commented about the man who jumped ship:

“Don’t feel sorry for him. He didn’t have the guts for it. The others ran risks. They alone deserve the rewards.” - p.47

If and when you decide to take the leap, and do eventually reap what you sow, the rewards will be well deserved and all yours to keep.

References:
Bloomberg, M. (1997) “Bloomberg by Bloomberg,” John Wiley & Sons, Inc., USA

Special thanks to Superurdi for lending me this book

Singapore: Middle Class Wage Stagnation

This was in the press not too long ago:

Middle class wage stagnation could lead to social instability
By Pearl Forss, Channel NewsAsia | Posted: 11 January 2007 1856 hrs

SINGAPORE: Middle class wages have been stagnant in the past 5 years, according to economists, and this could lead to social instability.

These concerns were shared by economists at the annual Institute of Policy Studies Singapore Perspectives conference, who also added that the government is taking steps to address the problem.

Economists believe a US economic slowdown in business and consumer spending may cause problems for Singapore, but as Singapore is tops in the ASEAN resilience index, it should be able to weather external shocks, thanks to a diversified economy and strong Asian demand.

They predict that growth going forward will be above 3 to 5 percent.

The long-term growth limits for a mature economy was previously in the 3 to 5 percent range.

However, economists are asking who this growth is for. The income of the bottom 30 percent of the population has fallen. What is more worrying is the fact that the majority of Singaporeans in the middle class has only seen about a one percent increase in their nominal income in the last 5 years.

The answer to this question is clear: the vast majority of economic growth has benefited the upper class and the rich; the middle and lower classes have hardly benefited from the reported economic growth that the government has put up of late. One can see this in the growth in property prices that has centred around high end luxury properties built mainly for rich foreigners, and in the focus on developing industries designed to attract the foreign rich to our shores: Casino gambling and Private Banking.

But considering the vast concentration of political power in the hands of a few, Singaporeans should not be surprised that their interests have been, at best, secondary to those of the ruling and upper class. Singaporeans have repeatedly chosen small monetary handouts over substantive political change, and the economic impact can be said to be a direct result of their political choices.

This is not just a Singapore problem say economists who point out that stagnant wages is a global problem.

The chief reason for this is globalisation, especially with India and China introducing a large pool of skilled and unskilled labour to compete with the labour forces of industrialised countries.

Singapore is susceptible to this because of its open economy.

This part of the report fails to consider one very important fact: Singapore is largely a country of wage earning employees, in contrast to free economies like Hong Kong or the United States where there is a substantial proportion of small businesses. These countries, unlike Singapore, value free enterprise and entrepreneurship; people take risks to start their own businesses and do not necessarily value the lawyer/doctor/accountant/banker route with anywhere near the kind of respect that Singaporeans do. Take a visit to Hong Kong and you will see multiple small businesses along Nathan Road running their operations long into the night, with their neon lights flashing for your attention. Singapore, in comparison, is a dead city. And why? because most people are too busy going home after their 9-9 job and plunking down on their bed, getting ready for the next day of work.

No, the thing that most makes Singapore susceptible is not the fact that it has an open economy, it is not the fact that China and India are exporting more and more cheap labour, it is because Singaporeans themselves have grown too accustomed to depending on the government to tell them what to do, what job to work for, and have been psychologically conditioned to be employee-smart, but entrepreneurially dumb.

Manpower Ministry data shows that 124,000 jobs were created last year and 45 percent of these jobs went to foreigners.

It is thus no surprise that multiple jobs should go to foreigners. In fact, citizens only took 30% of the jobs, the other 25% going to PRs. It is clear that Singapore is not a country for Singaporeans, it is a country where Singaporeans screw themselves to serve foreigners.

Why? Perhaps it is because Singaporeans as a whole have some kind of deep-seated inferiority complex where they do not believe that they are as good as foreigners. They treat their own scholars poorly by paying them less than foreign imports. They treat their own men poorly by not making special arrangement for the fact they have served national service. And they have a weird obsession with bringing in 'foreign talent' to fill each job where they believe there is no local to fill.

And the great paradox is that Singaporeans repeatedly vote in a government that embodies and emphasises this phenomenon. Can we really put all the blame on the PAP for being an abusive husband when Singaporeans willingly play the subservient wife? Can we really put all the blame on foreigners for wanting to take our jobs when we do not stand up to fight for our own ricebowls?

I personally think that Singaporeans are in no way inferior to foreigners. In fact, I have come across many caucasians whom I think are dumber than most. But then, the government and other Singaporeans seem to disagree.

It will be interesting to see how Singaporeans respond to this latest piece of news, and how this sado-masochistic relationship between ordinary Singaporeans and the government/foreigners develops.

Gayle Goh, Mr Wang, and George Yeo

Lately, there has been a bit of a debate around whether those who blog over political issues should step forth into the mainstream media to exchange views with politicians in public.

The debate was sparked over a difference of opinion between Mr Wang and Gayle Goh about whether they should appear on BlogTV.sg's latest episode, "Big Boys Blogging." In particular, Gayle was rather critical of what Mr Wang said in his rejection of the invitation to appear on the show. Here's my take on the debate:

Gayle seems to have a soft spot for the mainstream media. She has participated multiple times on television shows and has written for local broadsheets. She also blogs with her real name, so, she really has little to lose by appearing on TV. In fact, it heightens her profile and helps her in her quest to promote 'engagement' between bloggers and the msm/incumbent politicians. She is also comparatively young, does not yet have a career and/or mouths to feed, and is waiting to enter college. Her life circumstances are very different from Mr Wang and other bloggers whom she critiques.

Mr Wang, in contrast, is a social commentator who prefers to preserve his anonymity. He has a career and a family to take care of. Being several years older than Gayle, he is conscious of the approach that the PAP has taken towards its critics and is cognisant of the risks he might be taking by stepping out into the open and revealing his identity. Given the approach that Lee Kuan Yew and family have taken towards outspoken critics of his regime, Mr Wang probably feels that it is more prudent for him to remain anonymous, rather than step out into the playing ground of the PAP.

As we can see, the two bloggers are in rather different stages in life and have rather different experiences with regards to politics. Gayle comes from a younger generation that is idealistic, optimistic, and has not felt the full force of the authoritarian rule of LKY, and probably does not fully understand the risks a salaried family man takes when becoming a government critic. Mr Wang, meanwhile, has observed the political scene in Singapore somewhat longer and is much more cynical that appearing on TV is worth his time.

Clearly, the two have vastly different experiences and points of view, which probably explains the great difference in opinion and response to the BlogTV invitation.

Interestingly, Gayle says that "[she] entirely disagree[s] with [Mr Wang's] take on this issue." Mr Wang himself has yet to respond to Gayle's post (as of this writing).

Gayle says,

"If we become blase and disinterested, distancing ourselves, then is it really the government's fault when we complain of an affective divide?"

However, she has not factored into her argument that CNA is a government owned media network that is heavily censored in favour of the PAP. While it may be all nice to engage in a conversation, that is only so if the exchange takes place on a fair playing field where both sides have the equal opportunity to make their points and where their statements are not skewed, censored, or misrepresented. The mainstream media in Singapore, however, has a reputation and track record of heavy censorship of anything that portrays the ruling party in a negative light. And because of this, Mr Wang probably has a very strong reason to turn down the invitation to appear on state-controlled television because of the ways he has been misrepresented and/or censored in the past.

Gayle also says,

"The right of reply is a wondrous thing."

And implies that by criticising the establishment from the comfort of his blog and refusing to engage them face to face, Mr Wang is denying them the right of reply. Yet in making her argument Gayle has failed to consider how the PAP have used their monopoly of the mainstream media in Singapore to shape public opinion and debate towards their agenda, without giving the opposition a genuine 'right of reply.' She has also failed to consider that George Yeo and PAP MPs have every opportunity to engage Mr Wang's posts on their own blogs or by leaving comments on Mr Wang's blog - on the internet they have a perfect opportunity to claim their 'right of reply,' an opportunity that they have yet to take advantage of. At the same time, the mainstream media is clearly a skewed playing field without the same opportunity for equal exchange that Gayle asks bloggers to give politicians. Time and again the local daily and its media cousins have not only censored but misrepresented opinions irrelevant to their agenda - critics are well justified if they decide that engaging on an uneven playing field is not worth their time.

Gayle does make several good points, though, one of which is:

"...the opportunity to quiz ministers directly on the issue helps the debate to evolve."

Indeed, few would deny that being able to converse directly with those in power is an exciting and valuable opportunity. Even Mr Wang acknowledged that he "was somewhat tempted." I doubt any would contest that genuine engagement with a minister would enhance political dialogue and citizen participation in politics.

But perhaps if she paused to consider why so many bloggers turned down the opportunity to converse with George Yeo (at least four or five did so, to my knowledge; even Bernard Leong nearly declined the invitation - which would have made Gayle the only participant), Gayle might find cause to temper her criticisms of these bloggers with as much criticism of the media machinery in Singapore.

However, this post may have too much Gayle bashing. Perhaps she is right, and the other "notoriously uncontactable bloggers" are all wrong. Perhaps her youthful idealism and optimism will pay dividends when she "ask[ed George] about opposition politicians and new media like podcasts and (tongue-in-cheek) sound amplification devices in public." If, and when, "these things... ..survive the cuts and edits," I will be more than pleased to have my arguments proven wrong, and for Gayle's efforts to herald a new era in political engagement between ordinary citizens and ministers in the mainstream media.

-----
Bibliography:
Your Danse Macabre
Talk of the Town
Teaser to "Big Boys Blogging"