Sg Pirate Game

Minimum Wage: Another Perspective

2011-01-16T11:54:00.005+08:00

For several months now, there is a debate on the issue of minimum wage on the local blogosphere. While many advanced economies has minimum wage as a bedrock of the national wage structure, the Singapore government has thus far refused to follow suit. Many proponents of the implementation of a minimum wage structure (almost exclusively bloggers and opposition leaders instead of speakers in our Parliament) in Singapore have given pretty valid and convincing analysis of the benefits of such a policy but the government's response has been disappointingly repetitive, almost irrelevant and unreasonable in the view of many.

While there are variants of responses from the multitude of government agencies on the subject of minimum wage, the central theme of all these counter-arguments is as follows. The increase in labor due to minimum wage will render doing business in Singapore expensive and inefficient. Companies will leave Singapore en-mass and with that exodus, economic and financial Armageddon will descend upon our shores. Overpriced local properties would then halve in value overnight while unemployment soars. "...we have to invade them else they are going to attack us with their nuclear weapons hidden in bunkers underneath their huts......we have sufficient evidence to conclude the weapons are there.....". Sounds familiar?? Sometimes the easiest thing is sell is fear and the only thing to fear is fear itself.

In this post, I propose a slightly different proposition to having minimum wage in Singapore. While there are definitely some benefits to some parts of our populace by institutionalizing a minimum hourly wage in Singapore, I propose that such an implementation will have effects that goes beyond enhancing the meager income of low-wage workers in Singapore.
I believe that a good proportion of Singaporeans are not directly affected by the absence of a minimum wage structure in Singapore. They are already earning above that minimum income level anyway and the implementation of an income floor do not directly affect people earning way above that floor. The absence or presence of minimum wage in Singapore has nothing to do with them, or so they think.

One of the biggest social problems countries like Singapore, China or India is the income disparity between the rich and poor in the country. A wide income gap presents a threat to the social harmony of a country. I believe instituting a minimum wage will go some way in elevating that problem. Singapore is a fully-fledged capitalistic economy. Free enterprise is encouraged and the desire to accumulate wealth is a celebrated trait in such an economic system. As such, we cannot and should not penalize the top earners of the country for getting ahead in our capitalistic society in a attempt to reduce the income gap. Instead we should try to elevate the income levels of the lowest earners in the country and instituting a minimum wage is obviously a positive step in that direction.

However, I believe that a minimum wage policy will have limited success in pushing up the lower limit of the national income gap. Other more robust and wide-ranging policies will have to be put in place for a more significant rise to be effected. Instead the major effect of a minimum will be to relieve the downward pressure on this lower income limit. Simply, it may not help push low incomes up, but it would certainly help in preventing low incomes being depressed even lower. Let me explain.

I actually agree with the government's analysis that some companies would transit out of Singapore when a minimum wage structure increases labor costs. Some industries may even leave Singapore all together for good. But if such moderate wage increases cannot be adequately compensated by Singapore's other economic virtues (like superior infrastructure, stable governance, geographical convenience, financial sophistication etc.) so as to render these industries commercially in-viable, then we can conclude that these industries must be labor-intensive, sun-set industries that are lower down in the value-added chain, industries that the government claim to want out off, more than 10 years ago!!! The departure of these industries cannot be such a disaster, can it?

While there will be some pain involved in such transition where some out-dated industries are phased out (temporary structural unemployment), in the longer run, there are potential benefits aplenty. I believe by implementing a minimum wage, Singapore will be sending a signal to foreign companies that Singapore is not an the place to engage in cheap, low-skilled work. Over time, the demand for such jobs will reduce and with that the supply of such workers will also disappear. Think of the current fury over the indiscriminate importing of foreign laborers and low-skilled workers. Would they still come when there are no longer $3-$4/hour jobs all over Singapore?

Naturally with the absence of these low-waged, cheap propellers of the economy, GDP may fall below the record levels we see today. But such stellar GDP figures tells little of the true economic well-being of the common citizenry. Powering a country's GDP with brute-force, no-brainer drivers like wanton condo-building and infrastructure projects is akin to pumping the economy full of steroids. It looks good now but it can never last and a crash is just round the corner. Instead, instituting a minimum wage is the first step towards priming Singapore's economy for a more sustainable and desirable evolution into a truly first-world one.

Economics has proved to be a dismal science in the past decade. We need to understand that any prediction of any economic policy is more of an art than science. My projection of the potential benefits of implementing minimum wage may never come to pass. Similarly, the government's prediction of economic disaster from such a policy may also be just conjecture. At least, for the thousands and thousands of workers slogging at McDonald's for $4 a hour, my suggestion gives them a couple of dollars more an hour for their efforts and a happier cashier when you next buy an Extra-Value Meal.

Be hungry, be foolish

2010-01-13T15:27:00.004+08:00

Another brilliant post on my pal Fievel's blog on what it means to be happy and I am eternally grateful to him for reminding me again what it is supposed to be all about. Despite my mounting pile of work on my desk, I feel compelled to write a blog post about this gem of a speech by Steve Jobs, one of the most inspiring characters of our generation. Steve Jobs gave the speech at the graduating class of 2005 from Stanford University. He spoke about 3 episodes in his life to convey to the group of graduates a very important message, one that we often forget or choose to ignore in our busy Singapore way of life. After hearing his speech, I started thinking about the stark contrast between his experiences/views and that of a typical Singaporean, myself included, and wondered if we have completely missed the point of what it means to be happy and alive.

Episode 1 – Connecting the Dots

Jobs talks about the financial sacrifice his working-class parents had to make to send him to college which he subsequently dropped out. It wasn't that Jobs didn't like school or hard work but he didn't enjoy the prescribed course of learning that regular under-graduates had to endure as part of their university curriculum. Then he dropped out of college but still hung around school, only to attend the classes which he found interesting and engaging. His journey down this un-trodden path of learning led him to discover calligraphy and 10 years later, helped create the wonderful typography we see on our Macs today. What started as a seemingly frivolous interest in calligraphy, turned out to be one of the cornerstones of Job's legacy to the world. "…..You cannot connect the dots looking forward. You can only connect them looking backwards…..", he explained. I wonder how many of us in Singapore try to do the exact opposite.

I started thinking the hordes of young adults entering our local colleges, and like Jobs, they have no idea what they wanted to do with their lives. Most of they would try for the Medicine, Law, Business Ed, Accountancy and Engineering Faculties (which is indeed the sequence of choices in terms of popularity and desirability). These are the "safe" choices. The parents advise the benefits of such courses, the government advocates them on national media and even your friends see you in a different light if you are a future lawyer. Try telling your friends and family that you want to quit medical school to pursue a career in creative arts and I can guarantee that you will get looks of incredulity as if you had told them that you can fly. Here in Singapore, we connect our dots forwards. We care about what is apparent, what is immediately ahead of us, for the next few months or years. For most of us, we have neither the patience nor foresight to see that the dots connect backwards. A quick check on our property prices as well as the forecasted results for the next general election will confirms my assertion.

Episode 2 – Love and Loss

He then touches on his ouster from Apple at age 30 and his subsequent reunion with Apple after she acquired his new startup. "…..the heaviness of being successful was replaced by the lightness of being a beginner again…..". After his departure from Apple, relieved of the pressure of living up to society's expectations and proprieties, he rediscovered his zeal for life and creativity energy. In this period, he founded startups Next and Pixar as well as married the love of his life. "….the only thing that kept me going is that I loved what I did. You got to find what you love…..if you haven't found it yet, keep looking, don't settle…..". Jobs correctly pointed out that a large part of our lives will be consumed by work. If we cannot love what we do or have passion and belief for that major component of our lives, how can it be possible for us to rise above mediocrity to become great at what we do. Without that passion, our work becomes a merely a job, a means of earning the dough needed to carry on an uninspired, unfulfilling existence.

I have worked with many people that complained about their jobs being boring, meaningless and unfulfilling. Yet these very same people persist in performing the most menial and trivial of tasks, contented to fill their working day by pushing emails and repeating laborious paper work while simultaneously rejecting or avoiding the more creative or original assignments. Ask these people if they are willing to switch to more fulfilling and enriching roles, they will often cite the lack of financial stability or other excuses as reasons why they have to continue doing what they are doing, even if they dislike or even hate it. Many Singaporean, myself included, suffer from the "heaviness of being successful" indeed. Perhaps it is the way the Singaporean social society is setup, perhaps it is the lack of social security here or perhaps it is the suffocating costs of goods and services in Singapore. Whatever the reason, the "lightness of being a beginner again" seems like a forlorn ambition that adult Singaporeans can only dream to have but unfit to pursue. A lot of Singaporeans do not love what they do and in the rare instance that one has found what they love, Singaporeans are pre-disposed to discard that love and settle for a lesser, albeit more practical, alternative.

Episode 3 – Death

Job's recent health problems made the headlines and in the absence of Apple's charismatic leader, the shares plummeted. Jobs puts it very eloquently in his speech, "…..for the past 33 years, every morning I look myself in the mirror and asked myself 'If today was the last day of my life, would I do what I am about to do today?' and whenever the answer has been no for too many days in a row, I know I need to change something…..". In the initial prognosis of his pancreatic cancer, his doctor told him that he had less than 6 months to live and advised him to make preparations for his impending death. Later it turned out that his cancer was actually not fatal and Apple today still enjoys the impeccable wisdom and guidance of its founder. Death, according to him, was the most effective tool to help him make the big choices in life, the best way to avoid the trap of thinking that one has too much to lose. "…..Death is the best invention of life, it clears away the old and introduces the new…..Death is the common destination for all of us…..your life is limited, don't spend your time living someone else's life…..".

This is a simple yet profound truth behind the meaning of our very existence. Our jobs, the money we have in the bank, the number of properties or cars we own etc., all of these things are accessories to a meaning and fulfilling existence. They are only material things, dead unloving possessions. They should rightly be secondary to the primary aim, which is to live a full and rewarding life. Instead, more and more, life itself takes a backseat to the pursuit of these material things. Somehow for many people, they have changed to become slaves to the very objects that they ought to master, as they are nothing but tools to help achieve a higher, ultimate aim. Do we have to be at our deathbeds, tethering on the brink of life, before we fully grasp what it means to be living and appreciate what we really should be living for?

In the near future, I hope to be embarking on my adventure for a more meaningful existence. Things will be tough and I will have doubts about the "things" I am giving up to follow my heart and intuition. When I do, I hope I will always remember this speech by Jobs and these poetic words from the Whole Earth Catalogue, "Stay Hungry, Stay Foolish". I rather be hungry but foolish then to settle for a less inspired and mediocre existence instead.

Pls enjoy the original speech by Jobs.

Hero-Worship

2009-12-09T10:39:00.001+08:00

While reading one of my favorite local blogs regarding an emerging social class in Singapore, termed by the media as an "ultra-underclass", I was very irritated by a comment left on the blog by a reader that do not even have the courage or decency to leave his/her name after the comment. In that comment, the reader wrote "without PAP, we will be fishing at the kampung and dying from cholera. ;)".

It is sheer propaganda that without the hegemony of the PAP government, Singapore will be reduced to an equivalent of the Malay fishing village 50 years ago. We should remember to give credence and gratitude to a government that did achieve remarkable feats with a pea-sized island with no resources except its people. However to infinitely extend that same respect and thanks we owe to the incumbent government, into pure awe and ultimate fear of the PAP reeks of mindless worship.

Singapore has its strengths and flaws. We do not live in a Malay village any longer. If Singapore is indeed the progressive and democratic state that she professes to be, then let there be open discussion and debate on the flaws that Singapore has, instead of reiterating only the good in our national press. If Singapore cannot achieve these basic human rights of freedom of speech and expression, then let the government be upfront about Singapore's inadequacy and confess that dirty linen such as this emerging "ultra-underclass" is an inevitable product of our national policies. Simply sweeping these politically-incorrect issues under the rug or papering it over with meaningless reports of rising GDP is pure hypocrisy.

I hope sincerely in my heart that the civil society in Singapore can emerge from the shadow of our pervasive government control but I can understand if the ruling class does not agree with my suggestion. Just be truthful and not be hypocritical about it. I think we deserve at least that decency.

Thou shall not kill – a logical argument

2009-12-03T14:38:00.002+08:00

Firstly I apologize for an extended time away from my blog. I just can’t seem to find the passion or conviction to put my thoughts in words. Anyway, here is my latest attempt.

The impending execution of drug trafficker Yong Vui Kong made the headlines in the papers today. His lawyers are challenging the validity of the conviction, insisting that Yong was not fully aware of drugs he was carrying when police apprehended him at the checkpoints. Yong claimed that he was only following instructions from his employer, helping to deliver "presents" to Singapore. Human rights campaigners all over the world rallied to the cause of the convicted man and accused Singapore’s government of double-standards, citing her “hypocritical” approach of executing traffickers on one hand and discreetly liaising with well-known drug lords on the other.

I am a proponent of Singapore’s tough drug laws. I believe the harsh legislation against drug crimes of any sort is a main reason to Singapore’s reputation as a drug-free state. However, I think the implementation of the death penalty goes beyond the mere function of prevention and deterrence against the dangers of illegal drugs. Sadly I think capital punishment is a by-product of the typical Singaporean attitude to conform to existing norms and resist deviation from traditional practices, as well as the ruling classes’ insensitivity and intolerance to the less fortunate populace. Sensibility, compassion or rationality count for little in this issue. Let me explain.

In my opinion, the penal code serves 2 primary social functions. The first is to protect the general society from probable future harm by segregating the likely offenders through imprisonment. The prerequisite of identification of such probable offenders is through their track record of lawful civilian behavior. Therefore we jail individuals that break the law, for a certain length of time, until the probability of these people harming society becomes unlikely. Repeat offenders get longer and longer sentences as statistically, they are more likely to harm society if they are not confined within the prison system and more time is needed to reduce that likelihood, either through rehabilitation or otherwise, before any release should be considered. The enforcement of tough laws against drug crimes from this perspective is therefore logically valid and convincing as we know the extremely harmful effects drugs have on individuals, family and ultimately the society.

The second primary function is that of deterrence. The death penalty was implemented ages ago to combat Singapore’s then rampant drug problems. The idea is to implement extreme tough punitive measures to deter individuals from such crimes. However with the passage of time and consequent progress of society worldwide, the castigatory divide between life imprisonment and the death penalty begins to narrow. Increasingly in a world where freedom is paramount and hope springs eternal, the prospect of spending the rest of your life behind bars is not significantly different from that of a death sentence. A potential trafficker would not view life imprisonment as a significantly more attractive alternative to a death sentence. As such, the death sentence starts to lose its validity as the ultimate deterrence mechanism when there is the alternative of life imprisonment.

As the logic of implementing the death sentence fails, the reasons for its abolishment gains credence. There are a couple of reasons for it. Firstly, proponents for capital punishment increasingly look like the bloodthirsty vindictive kind that desires vengeance instead of justice. Life imprisonment serves the 2 main functions to society just as effectively as the capital punishment, with the only difference being a lack of the element of retribution. The government, being a secular guardian of our society’s well-being and enforcer of our impartial judiciary system should rightly only consider the 2 factors I outlined above, instead of seeking retribution in the pretext of maintaining justice. Secondly, the capital punishment is a permanent chastisement with no future means of repeal. In the event that an individual is wrongly convicted of drug trafficking, the capital punishment is the most cruel and un-constitutional form of torture that is ironically endorsed by the weight of our judicial system. On the basis of compassion, justice and basic human decency, we need to at all cost preserve the sanctity and sacredness of human life and the abolishment of capital punishment is a good place to start.

In a land where we have multi-millionaire politicians and sky-rocketing public housing, costs of maintenance of human life within a state-funded prison system, cannot and should never be the principal factor determining the right of individuals to live. I am not a Christian but I can the validity of what the Bible preaches when it tells us that “thou shall not kill”. Because at the end of the day, we do not want blood, innocent or not, on our hands, particularly when we have a better and more logical alternative.

Singapore Chocolate Factory

2009-09-23T03:11:00.008+08:00

The National Integration Council announced plans for a $10m fund to facilitate efforts to help new immigrants integrate into the local community. The $10m fund can be used for co-funding of projects by private and public organizations or societies that promote social cohesion amongst citizens and new immigrants. In true Singapore fashion, the government wasted no time in packaging this initiative into a national media campaign and solicited the artistic community to lend a helping hand. Unexpectedly, the arts fraternity declined to take up the offer. The reasons given by the leaders of the community for declining the government's offer include the reluctance by the artists to engage in propaganda art as well as the basic difference in opinion for fostering social integration in Singapore. Many in the arts circle feel that the government's approach to try to create a common identity and culture amongst different community groups is the opposite of their vision of a celebration of diversity and promotion of healthy interaction and dialogue amongst the different groups. The artists' deliberate dissociation with the campaign seemed to me to be of an ideological and technical nature. For someone with little or no artistic talent or inclination, my concerns are much more prosaic and ordinary.

Let me begin with a story.

There is a factory that produces chocolates for sale. There are 20 bakers working in the factory and a manager to keep things running smoothly. Work is hot and stuffy but there is a big fan to keep things bearable and the bakers are satisfied with their jobs. As the factory is working well, orders for its chocolates started pouring in and the manager realizes that 20 bakers may not be enough to meet the orders. He wants to produce the numbers to present to higher management but is also worried about rising costs if he implements overtime pay for his bakers. He then sees some gardeners working outside the factory. He figures that chocolate-making isn't really a difficult art anyway and decides to employ the gardeners to be his new bakers. The gardeners, due to their inexperience, were much cheaper than the experienced bakers but they didn't mind since baking beats gardening anytime anyway. The manager got to meet his production numbers while keeping costs low. However, with the addition of the new bakers, the factory was getting more crowded and hotter and the bakers started complaining. The manager had to turn up the fan to its maximum speed to keep the temperature and tempers down. Some bakers warned that the fan was never meant to be operated at that speed for a prolonged period of time but the manager didn't listen. True enough, the fan soon broke down and the workers had to pool together a big sum of money out of their meagre pay to get the fan fixed since it is essential for their daily work. The manager did not contribute since he did not work directly with the bakers but spent most of his time in his air-conditioned office. He reminded the bakers that the fan was a luxury provided by the factory which should not be taken for granted and thus the factory should not be held liable for its repairs. The fan was nevertheless repaired with the bakers' money and the orders were met on time. For his leadership, the manager was awarded with an extra month of salary. Using the spare change from this his bonus, the manager bought a packet of sweets to be shared amongst his bakers for a job well done and encouraged them to take 5 minutes off to get to know each other better before starting work on the new orders.

Can anyone identify with the bakers in the story above? While $10m does sound like a lot of money, I consider this sum of money to be only the explicit cost of social integration of the new immigrants in Singapore. The implicit costs are way higher and I believe that the local populace, rather than the government, bears the bulk of this unintended burden. I feel that the roots of dissatisfaction of the local population with the new immigrants do not primarily lie in the cultural or racial differences. There will be undoubtedly small amounts of conflict arising from the differences in culture, race, language and religion between the local population and the new immigrants. Every now and then we will still have the minor disagreements with our neighbors and friends, regardless of their race, religion, sex or age. We have always been able to resolve these differences and I believe we will continue to do so if the differences are of this benign nature. The widespread discontent with new immigrants, spreading like wild fire within the media and cyberspace, is due to matters much more tangible and realistic; that of property, jobs and quality of life.

The effects that the influx of immigrants has had on property and jobs have been widely discussed. The strain the increasing population places on our transportation system is another no brainer which I do not wish to elaborate. What cannot be denied is that in more ways than one, the influx of immigrants does not seem to have caused a positive change in the lives of the majority of Singaporeans. In fact many will argue it is quite the opposite. The root causes of the social unrest remains unresolved. Furthermore these causes seems unlikely to be ratified any time soon. No amount of advertisements and posters protraying neighbours holding hands, exercising together or any other imagery of inter-racial harmony will change that. Some will argue that some improvement, no matter how insignificant and irrelevant, is still better than no improvement at all and I have to agree with that. One sweet is better than no sweets at all right? Years after the "Speak Good English" campaign, we still have a certain Miss Ris Low appearing on national TV to "boomz" the audience. This social integration effort by the council will follow a similar fate. Singaporeans will remember the campaign slogan, perhaps the campaign mascot as well. But the real healer to the social pains we are experiencing now will not be due to this initiative of the council. Instead it will be the uncanny ability of Singaporeans to endure, rationalize then accept the status quo. That is the true Singaporean virtue and that is how the immigrants will be accepted and integrated into Singapore.

But just take a moment to consider. If Singapore is indeed like a chocolate factory, are common Singaporean like the bakers? If the bakers paid for a fan they did not break, are Singaporeans paying for the effects of asset inflation and crushing debts which they were not responsible for? If the cheap sweets were scant consolation to the bakers, would a $10m sweetener from a multi-billion GDP (thus bonus) windfall make any difference to the common Singaporeans? We need to ask ourselves if the common Singaporean is indeed a baker and if benefits for the factory equates just rewards for the bakers. What is the rationale in what we are doing as a country and can there be a better way out? There are the questions we need to ask ourselves if we do not want to end up like a typical baker in the Singapore Chocolate Factory.

Deceptive Statistics

2009-09-18T15:39:00.005+08:00

In a review article in the Straits Times last Saturday, a certain Professor Ivan Png argued that the “foreign worker buffer” was working as intended. Prime Minister Lee had also reiterated this in his speech to NTU students in his forum (see above) in NTU. Similar as the two views may seem to be, they were in fact different and I will explain why.

Many have assumed that Prof Png’s article was just another unmitigated attempt by the media to drum up support for the government’s labor policies. Actually I think that is not the case here. The professor’s article was a simplified version of a more technical consideration. Like all scholars, his view is that of an unbiased nature, stating the facts as what it is. There is no moral right or wrong in argument, instead it is simply a matter of facts and accuracy. Using foreign labor as a buffering mechanism to prop up the unemployment figures is an established method utilized by many governments to “enhance” that statistic. Singapore is not alone in doing so. The only difference is that perhaps only in Singapore, the touch-up work done to the unemployment statistic was not shamefully grossed over in the media but printed in bold as if to represent some kind of righteous justification. Let me illustrate with a simple example.

Take for example there are 7 unemployed Singaporeans for every 100 Singaporeans. That is 7% unemployment. Say we are in good times and the industries need to recruit 8 of every 100 people more. Because we only have 5 suitable local workers for this employment, we need to import 3 foreign workers. The unemployment ratio would have dropped from 7% to 1.9% (2/103). If there wasn’t foreign workers import, the unemployment rate would be 2%. Therefore in a booming economy, foreign labor help reduce the unemployment rate more quickly. Now, say the economy turned southwards and the industries are laying off 4 of every 100 people which we can reasonably assume will be 50% local Singaporeans and 50% foreigners. The unemployment ratio would have risen from 1.9% to 4% (4/100). Without foreign workers, the unemployment rate would be 6%. The foreign workers would have returned back to their country and do not contribute to the ratio’s denominator here. Therefore in a lagging economy, foreign labor help cushion the rise in unemployment rate.

This is the “buffer” effect the professor was talking about in his article. Whether such mechanism does indeed benefit the host country as a whole is debatable and personally I think it is nothing but a statistical disguise. But its efficacy of suppressing the unemployment rate cannot be denied.

Now, once we understand how this buffering mechanism is supposed to work, we must then think deeper into its exact usefulness and relevance to the country and its citizens. As seen from the simple example above, regardless of the overall unemployment figure, the number of Singaporeans employed during good times and laid off during bad times remains constant. If that is the case, the unemployment figure is but another test score on our government’s report card which it will use to pat itself on it pat for a job “well done”. The statistic means little if it doesn’t translate into actual effects for the people of Singapore.

More and more, national statistics are like playthings of the rich and powerful, used to justify the whims and fancies of the decision-makers. We have politicians that use statistical cosmetic surgery as an advertisement for the government’s labor policies instead of being red-faced and embarrassed for data manipulation. Either they do not understand what they are saying or they think we don’t. With a majority of the local population that takes every at face value and forgets to read between the lines after glancing through the headlines, such nonsensical and erroneous usage of statistics will continue to be tolerated and increasingly, accepted as the biblical truth. The people who blasted Prof Png’s article as well as the people praising the labor policies of our government are but 2 sides of the same coin, people deceived by the deceptiveness of local national statistics.

Frenching

2009-09-17T11:10:00.003+08:00

French president Nicolas Sarkozy had announced a revolutionary plan to include joy and well-being of his people as 2 of the key indicators of growth, in addition to traditional yardsticks like GDP. Together with Nobel laureates Joseph Stiglitz (2001, economics) and Armatya Sen (1998, economics), Sarkozy proposed that statistics on work-life balance, recycling, household chores and even levels of traffic congestion be taken into consideration when assessing the new indicators of growth.

France is the first amongst the developed world to adopt such a policy of economic measurement. Currently, only the remote Himalayan kingdom of Bhutan puts happiness and well-being at the heart of the government’s policy. In Bhutan, before any major fiscal or economic policies are implemented, the government must convene to evaluate how such new proposals will impact the country’s “Gross National Happiness” (I am not joking; this is an official statistic in this little enlightened nation). Sarkozy is going to present his plan in the next United Nations meeting.

Naturally, I started to compare France to Singapore upon hearing this piece of news. France’s official working week is 35 hours long and that is strictly enforced through the French employment law. Singapore’s working week is 45 hours or more with little or no avenue for recourse. Yet it is the French who are proposing to put more emphasis on the quality of life. The irony of it all makes me cringe. However I do think this is a very enlightened move by the sometimes controversial French president and the rest of the world’s leaders should take heed in this matter. Singapore, like many other countries, employs the increasingly irrelevant statistic of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) as the main measurement of progress. I am not talking simply about economic progress as many governments, including ours, have irrationally extended GDP improvement to imply overall improvement in the lives of its citizens. There has long been other statistics like the GINI index proposed to complement GDP figure but thus far, none of the leaders are listening. I suspect none of the leaders wanted to start appearing inept if they are re-evaluated on a more comprehensive basis. Most of them had gotten straight A’s for their governance through the GDP measurement and subsequently reaping the rewards of it. No one is about to give that up and stop the party.

Singapore, to me, is more of a corporation then a democracy. Like any big corporation, Singapore naturally seeks the simplest and most efficient way to move forward. More sophisticated and intricate mechanisms are often discarded in favor of simple, direct methods which the leaders (in their ivory towers) can quickly see and easily understand. However, a country should not be run like a profit-seeking machine. Its people should never be treated like mere employees, much less a good or commodity, like instruments the company uses to realize its profit ambitions before discarding after use. In a true democracy, which many of today’s countries profess to be, the power of the people, instead of the government, should be absolute. The people will in turn exercise and express that power through the democratic processes of elections and protests. The resources of a nation should naturally be employed in benefit of its citizens instead of being locked up in chains behind opaque governmental institutions where it makes little or no difference to the everyday man. In Singapore and many other countries, how many people will say that true democracy exists or that government policies are driven primarily for the benefit of the common people, rather than the leaders?

The French invented many wonderful things. Amongst many things, they gave the world the croissant, the 2-piece bikini, the modern cinematography and the french kiss. President Sarkozy’s proposal may turn out to be the next gem. I am not sure if the French president’s commitment to improving the quality of life of his people can help bring about a fundamental shift from the failings of today’s “GDP-centric” governments. But anyhow, I would like to say a big “Merci” to Monsieur Sarkozy for at least trying to make a difference.

A picture says a thousand words

2009-09-16T13:36:00.002+08:00

Came across this gem of a video from one of the blogs. In busy Singapore where lots of us stare mindlessly at a computer screen throughout the day, little surprises may happen if we just take the time to look out of our window, into this big miraculous world.

Water is a right, not a property

2009-09-06T14:08:00.003+08:00

We live in an inperfect world. For all our collective intelligence and innovation, quality of life on this planet of ours have not improved for the better, particularly for the poor and under-privileged of the world. I hope you can take a moment of your time to view this clip and sign-up for the petition online to the United Nations to make water a basic human right. Water, like the air we breathe or the sunlight that warms us, is not a property to be owned and sold by any one or any organization. Hopefully the next time you pick up a bottle of mineral water, we can stop and think a little about what is its true cost instead of the $1 you have just paid.

Faustian Pact

2009-09-06T00:31:00.001+08:00

Imagine that you are in one of the capsules on our magnificent Singapore Flyer. The devil is standing beside you and he hands you a rifle and makes you an offer. He points to the people below and offers you $10,000 for every person you gun down with the rifle. The people seemed like tiny black ants from your vantage point and barely appeared to move. The devil promises that you will not have to bear any consequences for your actions. He guarantees that you will never have to see the faces or that of his/her families of the people you shot. There is no need for provide any compensation in return for his generous offer. A few snaps of the trigger and you will become the rich man that you have worked so hard to be. Do you reject his offer or start counting the black little dots to calculate how rich you can become? What will you do?

Such incredible situations do not happen in real life. Many will point out that there is no such thing as a devil. But there is a point to this ridiculous story I have just described. Over the past few months, I have came across several documentaries, shot and produced by activists and other passionate film-makers, regarding a variety of subjects, ranging from the Sudan civil war to animal abuses to environmental issues. I have no particular interest in most of the issues that were so fervently portrayed within these films but I have always liked the humbling effect it has on me when, through these documentaries, I see what a big wide world we have out there and how little I know and feel about so many things.

The diversity of our world is not the topic of my post. I want to write about something closer to home. In all the documentaries that I have watched, there is a central theme that is common across all of them. The root cause of almost all of our problems in the world today, I think, stems from the greed of man. It may not sound like a lot today since the economic recession of the past couple of years had made a poster-child of the greedy Wall Street banker. But to go beyond the cliché notion of greed, which is typically portrayed as intentional and deliberate, I am suggesting that an alternative kind of greed is more prevalent. One that is more naïve and unpremeditated but nevertheless, just as caustic and destructive as the former. There is a difference between knowingly greedy and unknowingly greedy. Let me explain with an example.

In one of the documentaries I watched regarding the evils of privatization of the water industry in poor African countries, the film-maker interviewed one of the former executives of one of the biggest water company worldwide. He revealed that the World Bank pushed Bolivia into accepting the privatization of their national water supply when Bolivia could not afford to repay the loans to the World Bank. The president of the ruling council of the World Water Committee used to work as a vice-CEO for the giant water company and the 2 vice-presidents of the council are currently working for the same company. For getting the company the water contract for Bolivia, the president of the committee as well as other members got generous kickbacks as well as guaranteed future employment with the company. It was a paltry sum of money to pay for a multi-billion dollar contract. The result of this illicit affair? The privatization effort caused widespread water shortage in almost all parts of rural Bolivia which in turn sparked a civil war that forced the Bolivian government to renounce their decision to privatize the water industry. More than 100,000 Bolivians died from water contamination in the years preceding the war. Children mortality rates in Bolivia still stands at more than 10%, one of the highest in the world, primarily due to the lack of clean water. The interviewed executive admitted to playing a part in this arrangement between the water company and World Bank and confessed to have received better bonuses (in the region of $50,000-$60,000) for his role. Only after retiring from his job and a chance encounter that exposed him to the tragedy in Bolivia that he helped to create, did he realize the horror of his action, the true legacy of his greed. Before that, he simply assumed he was part of an organization that provided a better, albeit more expensive, water solution to the developing country and didn't think much else of the downstream effects after that.

It almost always starts out that way. What harm can there be if one gets an extra bite of the pie if at the end of the day, everyone gets to benefit anyway. That justification sets one down that slippery slope where it becomes so easy to lose sight of the original kind intention and quickly become mired in internal conflicts between his greed and conscience. This is what I mean by unknowingly greed and I think this form of greed has struck closer to home, in a bigger and more pervasive way that people care to admit. People deserve the basic right to eat, drink and sleep. While other countries around the world struggle with satisfying the first 2 of these basic needs in the form of pollution and contamination of their food and water resources, we in Singapore struggle with the third, the right to sleep, which translates into the right to own a decent, comfortable home to live in and start a family.

I have no doubt in my mind that there is no grand conspiracy between the property developers and relevant authorities to continue to fan the property bubble that is threatening to make even public housing unaffordable to the common man on the street. There had been many posts regarding this issue and I am not about to start another. But surely of the multitude of causes for the housing problems, one of them has to be that of greed. An escalating property market aids GDP growth which is the ultimate barometer for the government's performance (and pay packet) in our country. Someone somewhere must be thinking that not only is he/she getting some sweeteners from this property boom, existing property owners are getting richer so why not? But she does not see the downstream effects his/her unknowing greed has caused in terms of lower birthrates, crippling mortgage payments etc.

This phenomenon is not only true for property. We can argue the same for other issues like the rich-poor divide, freedom of speech, unfettered foreign immigration etc. The political hegemony casts a blanket of ignorance over the ruling elite where they cannot see or hear the cries of discontent from the common man. It is hypocritical to suggest that they are not the beneficiaries of their policies when their annual compensation exceeds 40 times that of the common citizen. What is particularly scary is the self-righteousness stemming from the belief that they are doing only what is right for the people despite being the direct beneficiaries from their decisions. I believe that they think they are doing the right thing but I worry that they do not know if they are not. The awful truth is that when the devil whispers his seductions of power and fortune besides your ear, he is often harder to resist than you think. When you don't have to look the person in the eye and see the horror of what you are doing, it is easy to pull the trigger on that faraway little black dot below.

Not one without the other

2009-08-28T16:41:00.001+08:00

Recently over a dinner conversation with a friend, we talked about an issue that bothered me greatly. We were talking about the growing number of bloggers in Singapore that used the relative freedom in cyberspace to talk and discuss about various issues in Singapore that people were concerned about. She had a view about these bloggers which offended me greatly, in no small part due to my own involvement in this community I must admit. Her view, which I reckon is one that many other Singaporeans have, is that she does not see any point or relevance in the discussions and views expressed on the blogosphere in Singapore. In a way, she sees most of what was written and talked about in the blogs as just hot air, hollow rhetoric without any real commitment or passion behind the words. Simply put, she thinks it's just empty talk, nothing more.

Over the past few weeks, there had been others that had expressed varying versions of my friend's view over the national media. We had some Singaporeans and even a Canadian accusing Singaporean bloggers of ingratitude. An insightful post by the LuckySingaporean correctly pointed out the erroneous conclusion that these people had drawn on the blogging community. The post explained that criticism of the current government do not equate ingratitude towards our nation's forefathers. In fact, the blogosphere provided some form of a check-&-balance mechanism for our political and fiscal process to focus more attention on providing for the earlier generations that made Singapore what it is today. Please take a minute or two to read the link to the post.

I think there is a very fundamental misconception which both my friend and the above mentioned prosecutors had made in their views. They had wrongly assumed that all the criticism published within the blogs belonged to people that were disadvantaged by the prevailing system. Such people seek to reap more benefits for themselves by chastising the incumbent administration and any suggestions of an overhaul of the current system were but attempts by such folk to rebalance the distribution of power and wealth for their benefit. While that may be true for some blogs, it is generally not the case for many others.

At least in my opinion, many of the issues discussed within the blogs do not immediately concern the bloggers themselves. It is out of a sense of justice, fairness and civic duty that they expressed their views so honestly and passionately. For many of us, the intention behind the words is pure and we do not have a personal agenda to say what we say. There is nothing to gain through the expression of our thoughts except the satisfaction that we helped spark some awareness amongst the unknowingly public about issues that are important and hopefully, in some small and personal way, help make Singapore a better place.

To try to effect some changes in society through any violent or disruptive means is not the Singaporean way. We thrived over the last 40 years as a nation in no small part due to the stability and rationality of our system and people. Aside of the mad rush during condo sales, there is generally no mob mentality on our tiny island. Singaporeans appreciate reasonableness, civility and persuasiveness and I am no exception. I think ranting political insults during dramatic and willful demonstrations of public defiance is an ineffective method to effect changes in society, especially within the Singapore context. We should try instead to encourage changes through open discussions and reasonable persuasion. If that should be the preferred method of engaging the leaders, what better way to do that then through the blogs? It may be a small step but it is also the first step, a most important one. While the blogging community, especially bloggers that blogs about social and political issues, have a duty to be responsible with their words and reasonable with their opinions, to dismiss the bloggers as a bunch of disenchanted, misguided ingrates is akin to stamping out any initiative for progress before any real change can happen. What are the chances for the youths of today to want to engage society and make a real difference if the first thing we do is to slam the door in their faces and dismiss their intentions the moment they try to express an alternative view.

Unthinking obedience is not a criterion for patriotism. Similarly, disagreement does not amount to treason. We write and critique on the affairs in Singapore because we care. Behind the sometimes fierce and passionate rhetoric on the disappointment with our current system, lies a love and pride for the country, our home which we hope to change for the better. It is far easier to agree and comply with the current state, and disregard the plights of other fellow Singaporeans as long as it does not concern one-self. It is easy to go quietly into the night and not make a sound when things are not important to you. Else, I believe if you truly care about something, you cannot simultaneously be concerned yet quietly indifferent about it. The criticism and patriotism stems from the same place and you cannot have one without the other.

I Respectfully Disagree

2009-08-25T17:53:00.001+08:00

NMP Viswa Sadasivan rocked the boat and ruffled a few feathers in Parliament a week back when he suggested a revisiting of the incumbent government's policies in relation to the tenets enshrined in our National Pledge. An excerpt of his wonderfully crafted speech can be found here. In response to his speech, the venerable MM dismissed it as a pompous rhetoric and rejected the practicality of Mr Sadasivan's suggestions, claiming instead that the spirit of our pledge only serves to be an aspirational guide which cannot be meaningfully and effectively integrated in policy-making machinery of our ruling government. This declaration came as a complete shock to me. I never knew that when I mouthed the words "…pledge ourselves to be one united people..." since my youth, I was actually saying "…hope to be one united people…". I reckoned that tons of Singaporeans never knew that also. Well, now you do.

Firstly I would like to praise the eloquence, grace and tact with which the newly appointed NMP delivered his maiden speech to the House of Parliament. His critique of the status quo was concise, respectful and well-reasoned. In stark contrast, the opposition to and subsequent dismissal of his proposals were callous, rude and intimidating. Ironically, the refusal of the incumbent leaders to listen or consider made the NMP appear even more dignified with his measured and intelligent mannerism. It heartens me to see that Singapore does have quality politicians that dare sing a different tune to that of the government. What the local political scene needs is people that have an alternative opinion and more importantly, able to articulate that opinion in a respectful and intelligent manner, so as to garner support for the less popular point of view. Waving an opposition political banner with crude insults of the ruling party, fists raised in vehement protest of the political oppression and shouting within the confines of Hong Lim Park are vulgar and ineffective ways to effect any political change. To me, Mr Sadasivan is a shining example how to make a real difference. Contrast him to overpaid civil servants who pepper their speech with "loh"s and "lah"s before swaying to beat of the Hokkien song of "要拼才会赢", I think there is hope for the political opposition in Singapore.

So, what did Mr Sadasivan say in his speech that ruffled the feathers of the leaders? I shall try to summarize his thoughts to the best of my ability and consider the validity of his suggestions. Mr Sadasivan suggested in the beginning of his speech that while Singapore may be doing well as an Incorporated, the same success is not replicated as a country. Social fractures are forming within the nation even as economic worries are dissipating. He suggested that the principles encapsulated within our pledge serve a doctrine to guide the actions of the government as they try to tackle the problems besetting Singapore. By expounding on each of the 4 tenets he identified in the Pledge, he demonstrated that the solution to some of the most pressing issue of the nation today, may be provided by adhering to the spirit that these tenets represents.

Firstly, he touched on the idea of Citizenship. He explained that the concept of citizenship does not comprise simply of the legal obligations to perform the duties expected of a citizen of a country. It is much more than that as a citizenship is as much a social and moral contract as it is a legal one. The sense of duty of a citizen should stem primarily from the love and honor he/she feels for the homeland than any legal or criminal repercussions. I cannot agree more with his point and I have to admit I am guilty of thinking sometimes that if I have a choice, I will choose not to perform my National Service. However, he has another equally important point to make about this tenet. That is, as much as a moral duty and obligation is due from a citizen to the state, the converse is equally true. If we agree that a citizen should feel unqualified commitment to the country, that commitment should be rightly reciprocated by the country (and in Singapore's case, the government) with appreciation and affection. While I am guilty of not giving my fullest and most heartfelt commitment to this country, the government is, to a greater or lesser degree, guilty of the exact same folly. Mr Sadasivan rightly pointed out that increasingly, the contract that existed between the citizen and the state is becoming unfairly skewed in favor of the state and the allegiance of our citizens is being taken for granted by the government. The exclusivity that differentiates a citizen and a PR comprises of non-consequential benefits like voting rights or slightly cheaper healthcare while the tradeoffs that the citizen suffers includes rocketing property prices and increased job competition. The contract between the citizen and state is breaking and the government should rightly be mindful of that.

Next, he discussed the idea of Unity which is inferred from the words "…one united people, regardless of race, language or religion…". Mr Sadasivan echoed the importance of a united nation where a pluralistic society is able to live and operate in peace and tranquility. To ensure that harmony, the most effective and enduring mechanism will be to institute equality for all citizens, regardless of one's race and religion and to be open, transparent and responsive about some of the apparent inequalities that exist in Singapore. This issue had already been discussed at length during the National Day Rally and I will not expound on the details of Mr Sadasivan's advice on the matter.

The next tenet he talked about was that of Justice & Equality. And the 2 main points he made about this tenet was about justifying the need of freedom of expression as well as the need for a more equal and balance political scene. His assertions in this section were the most forceful and pointed of his speech. Amongst his assertions include lack of free media, lack of political inclusiveness, electoral vote manipulation and government insensitivity. I applaud Mr Sadasivan's audacity to slay the sacred cow and break Parliament's silence on a variety of taboo issues. While I too concede the effectiveness and excellence of the results brought about by the pragmatism of Singapore's ruling brass over the past 40 years, it makes good sense going forward to follow the principles of justice and equality in terms of the political process in Singapore. The result of the progress Singapore has made over the last 40 years is a population that has grown increasingly affluent and sophisticated. The people yearn for more than basic needs like food and lodging. Intangibles like freedom of expression, political participation and civil liberties are becoming more important to the modern citizen. Arguably, there is a general consensus that the national media in Singapore toes the line set by the ruling political party and the overt propaganda spewed out the government-controlled media repulse and alienates rather than attract the political left. The political hegemony that is marginalizing the existing political opposition instills fear of persecution by the authorities, driving the any civil political engagement underground, onto the cyberspace which entrenches mistrust, contempt and cynicism of the government. Counter-intuitively, instead of engaging and including the general public with its pervasive presence on the political scene, the citizens are becoming increasingly disenfranchised and resigned by the lack of justice and equality in a political landscape dominated by a single overwhelming entity. To follow in the spirit of justice and equality as specified in our national pledge, the government may once again re-engage with the citizenry and in turn perpetuate its political longevity instead of ignoring widening cracks and fractures that are momentarily hidden underneath the hawkish surveillance of the ruling party.

Lastly, Mr Sadasivan touched on the principle of Happiness & Progress. He pointed out the growing disjoint between the nation's priorities and that of the ordinary citizenry. While the government continues to insist on tangible, quantifiable measures of progress like GDP, he correctly pointed out that these quantitative measures reveal little about the actual improvement in the lives of the ordinary man-on-the-street. The straight-line conclusion that happiness will result automatically from progress of only the economic variety is both archaic and naïve in the Singapore of today. Mr Sadasivan also challenged the widely accepted notion that providing more aid to the poor and the aged meant going down the path of becoming a welfare state. Such a conclusion, one of the many other straight-line ones drawn by the ruling party, is fundamentally flawed. It is akin to asserting that morphine can only be used by drug addicts and not for anesthesia. Administered appropriately, the government is able to provide some relief to these groups of people without overtaxing the government budget or overall economy. Other indicators like the GINI coefficient reveal more of the true picture of Singapore's society, where the rich-poor divide ranks amongst largest in the world. Hopes of a realignment of the existing economic policies pursued by the government to the spirit of true happiness and progress as encapsulated in our national pledge so as to result in progress that can lead to a more modern and comprehensive definition of happiness remains an elusive one. However it should be the duty of a Member of Parliament to become the matter to the fore and invoke a reconsideration of true merits of the existing system and suggest improvements to it. I am glad that Mr Sadasivan had started the ball rolling in such an effective and persuasive way.

The issues brought up in this speech are not new ones which have not already been mentioned in the media or blogosphere. But what Mr Sadasivan managed to achieve in his speech is to reframe these prevailing issues in the most elegant manner and articulate them in relation to the tenets espoused in our national pledge in the most eloquent and dignified way. To the assertion that Mr Sadasivan's speech is a highfalutin one, I have to respectfully disagree.

Property Bubble

2009-08-24T12:59:00.003+08:00

The Straits Times on Saturday published a 7-page special report discussing the recent property boom in Singapore. The property correspondent for ST deliberated on this phenomenon and discussed if the rebound in prices was indeed sustainable or that a property bubble was developing in Singapore. Many expert opinions were sought in the report but it seems to me that the opinions offered were often vague and unconvincing guesses about the trend of the property market that did not hold much water. I think the possibility of a bubble is much higher than that of real fundamental demand for property. Let me explain.

With the exception of Singapore and probably China, nowhere else in the world can one find such irrational exuberance. According to reports from the US Federal Reserve, European Union Central Bank and almost all governments around the world, the greatest economic recession since the Great Depression of the 1920s has only stopped getting more severe. Recovery is beginning and the economic wounds caused by the ravages of the financial tsunami are starting to heal. But that's the point. The economy is starting to heal, it is not fit and healthy, ready to go out there to jump in the air and perform somersaults. Singaporeans and Chinese do not seem to differentiate between "an economy that stopped getting worse" and a "booming economy". In China, most retail investors are not sophisticated ones. Speculation is rife and most retail investors in the markets punt their money on assets that they hardly understand. There is a saying in China, " 新股不败 ", which means that you cannot lose money by chasing after IPOs in China, even if the company is selling fresh air. Farmers sold their cattle and lands to punt in the stock market. Factory workers sold their bicycles to buy stocks of companies they had never heard of. For every rags-to-riches story the markets in China made, there are 3 or more tragedies that nobody heard. Since the stock market peak 1 month ago, the Shanghai Composite Index tanked more than 20%. For the Singaporeans that bought property which is easily 15-20 times the average annual income of a typical Singaporean, is what they are doing so different from the Chinese farmers and factory workers? I think not. The main difference is that Singaporeans are gambling with they think they will have but the farmer gambled with what he has got.

The economic backdrop to this property boom is significant. While there is general consensus that the economy will only get better from henceforth, the property market in Singapore had already priced in an economic future resembling the boom times of 2006-2007 or even the property bubble period of 1996-1997. This is a ludicrous assumption as the world economy had been fundamentally reshaped by this global financial crisis. Business costs and profitability, job security and remuneration are all going to be different in the new world economic order. Any property bought between 1996 & 1997 is still underwater, even after the ramp up in property prices over the last few months. Therefore to speculate in property that is priced on the assumption of a mean-reverting global economy is both naïve and dangerous. With the property boom that is hopelessly out of sync with the economic reality, there exists a real risk that property investors in Singapore may end up paying for overpriced white elephants for the rest of the lives.

The government should also be very concerned about this phenomenon as the investor base swarming into the current property boom are not high-end property investors but rather mass market participants that have lost their heads in the mad rush for "bargains". While the rich are more able to withstand valuation losses (thus margin calls on their property loans), ordinary folks may not be able to do so. If my predictions of a correction in the property market realizes, such investors may end up force-selling their expensive purchases at significant losses which would certainly derail the financial ambitions of these ordinary Singaporeans. Government subsidies for new babies and benefits like extended maternity leave seems laughable when newly-married couples are forced to delay their plans for a family due to financial ruin resulted from the purchase of their new properties. With sky-rocketing mortgage payments consuming a majority of the monthly salary, support for parents will become a greater issue and the whole "father suing son for neglect" problem comes into focus. The spillover effects from the private property market to the public one (ie. HDB) is becoming increasingly disruptive. Since there is currently no effective mechanism to segregate the public property market from the private one, the ramp-up in condo prices forces couples buying their first HDB to pay over the odds for a place to start building their family. Even a university graduate would struggle to pay for a 4-room HDB flat in today's prices without depleting their CPF holdings and monthly salary. Coupled with the government's move to import more and more foreign workers, in part feeding the rental market in Singapore (thereby further incentivizing the purchase of property to rent rather than to stay), the growing discontent by the burgeoning middle class can be easily understood. The various issues that plague the government today are all inter-connection ones. The root of one problem is often the consequence of another. The government needs to realize that there is a real multi-faceted social consequence to this mad rush for private property in Singapore's suburbs.

One of Singapore's property honcho told the ST that he does not think a bubble is developing. His arguments include 1) pent-up demand for private property from 2007/8 due to lack of supply by developers, 2) relatively cheaper property when compared to 1996, 3) low interest rates due to market conditions. I think none of these reasons make sense and cannot justify the current property boom. A bubble can be rightly defined as a spike in prices from pure expectations of future prices which is not dependant on any fundamental principles. As explained above, the fundamental economic reasons for purchasing property at such high prices is clearly non-existent. Investors are willing to pay such exorbitant prices simply because they are expecting others to follow suit. Stories of property agents snapping up 3 or 4 condominiums before the official launch only to flip them over to retails buyers are resurfacing. These people are not interested in investing in the properties. They do not care about factors like location or rent yield. All they care about is reselling the condos for a quick buck. As long as they can cover the loan interests for that short time between the flip and some cash to spare, who cares if they are helping to create the illusion of robust demand and hiking up the prices artificially?

Buyers were not buying in 2007-8 because they could not afford to, not because there were no private properties to buy. Job insecurity and asset depreciation were rife for the last 2 years and people were reluctant to commit to big financial outlays. The property developments were rescinded by the developers due to the lack of demand then. The developers were hoping to make a bigger profit when they re-release the developments into the market when demand came back. The supply was always there, just not the demand. To suggest otherwise would be hypocritical and inaccurate. Also, to compare the price levels now to that of 1996 is simply ridiculous. It was a bubble then. In fact, it was the biggest property bubble to date in Singapore. People were paying up till 25-times their annual salary to own a condominium. Just because it is not bigger than that of the 1996 bubble does not mean we are not in one now. The current boom is a bubble and it is fast becoming bigger than that in 1996.

Thirdly, the low prevailing interest rates was cited as a reason for the spending binge in the property market. There is some truth in this reasoning but that truth is not of the logical variety. Rather the reasoning is a rather frivolous, nevertheless accurate, one. You see, many Singaporean investors have short memories and consider things only in the immediate vicinity or timeframe. Although the short term interest rates for SIBOR are rather low for now, housing mortgages are tied to the floating SIBOR for the next 20-30 years. With the US Treasury's policy of quantitative easing, the huge stimulus will inevitably cause US interest rates to rocket to calm inflationary worries. With Singapore's financial markets open and accessible to investors worldwide and MAS's policy of pegging SGD to USD, the SIBOR will correspondingly rise in line with the US. Therefore if not for the shortsightedness of the average Singaporean property investor, the low interest rates they are paying now cannot and should not be a justification for putting money n an investment vehicle which will take 20-30 years to repay.

One of the cornerstones of the Singapore dream is to own a property of your own. The purpose of the government to institute the HDB was also to facilitate the building of quality, affordable housing to the people of Singapore. I was brought up to believe that everything in Singapore is possible as long as I am merit it. I do not think that anymore. Wealth is becoming the greatest social divide, one that cannot be bridged by industry or intelligence. If one is not rich enough in the beginning, it will be doubly hard for him to participate in the tremendous wealth of our nation. I grew up thinking that Singapore, despite its occasional inadequacies, was an ideal place to buy a home and set up a family. Instead, this dream of property ownership and family building increasingly feels more like a chain that traps one here on this tiny island, forcing one to serve out a mammoth financial obligation for the rest of his life with no respite. A property should first be a home before an investment. Unlike stocks, there is often a real human story behind a house or a piece of land. It means much more than just money and I hope people can see that earlier before the house of cards start falling down, bursting the bubble encapsulating it.

3rd Proposal

2009-08-06T11:10:00.004+08:00

As promised, I will continue on this original post, albeit in stages. Here’s the latest……

How to maintain Singapore’s high economic growth and keep on improving our standard of living?
See earlier post "2 Proposals"

How to satisfy transport demands of the next generation?
See earlier post "2 Proposals"

How to convince Singaporeans their lives will get better?
I do not agree with the Senior Minister on this. Why is convincing Singaporeans a big challenge? This “challenge” does not really concern Singaporeans in general. It merely applies to the ruling class, the incumbent government. Most Singaporeans like me are concerned about improving their lives, materially and otherwise. I do not care about “thinking and believing” that my life is going to get better. Self-deception and media-brainwashing are cannot substitute for an actual real improvement in quality of life.

It sounds to me that the Senior Minister is concerned about the effectiveness of its propaganda machine. The government is effectively in full control of the media. Through our local newspapers, TV etc, the ruling party speaks directly to the conscious of the nation. Much of its political hegemony is perpetuated through this mechanism. My case in point? Just talk to any individual, who is not privy to the widespread discussion of the fallacies of the existing government on the blogosphere but instead receives most of his/her information through the mainstream media, and I am quite certain that they can only see the positives of the existing administration.

But with a population that is increasingly sophisticated, knowledgeable and inquisitive, the media savvy-ness of our government needs to move to another level. I cannot speak for all Singaporeans but I cringe whenever I see on our Straits Times things like “Alice Wong, 35, housewife and mother of 2, also agrees that the recent increase in electricity tariffs is reasonable and fair……” and the likes. This is blatant propaganda done in the most crude and vulgar fashion, a major turnoff for many people. To encourage people to sincerely root for the government, I advise a media stance in the spirit of freedom of speech instead of the vulgar and oppressive media brain-washing. At least the government will begin to connect more to the informed and convince them that their leaders are reasonable, intelligent individuals that deserves respect.

The Silent Singapore

2009-08-05T14:04:00.004+08:00

There is a suffering group of Singaporeans that many of us are oblivious to. They are silent because of their ignorance or incapability. No one hears their muted cries for help. Their daily obsession with the struggle to find food or shelter renders them incapable of extracting themselves from their constant misery to any semblance of a basic acceptable human existence. In our fast-paced society where time is precious and speed is money, no one has the time to care for those who cannot help themselves.

I will be updating this post with more of my thoughts regarding this hidden tragedy that Singaporeans never saw. Meanwhile please take a few minutes of your precious time to look at this gem of a video by some enlightened students. Some moments of the videos are heart-wrenching.

2 Proposals

2009-08-05T10:17:00.003+08:00

A close friend recently complained to me about her irritation with blogs. She finds that there are an increasing number of blogs ranting about the inadequacies of our government. I am one of those bloggers she was talking about. I never thought of what I write about as senseless ranting and I still do not. However I have to admit I am too guilty of a fair amount of complaining, criticizing and finger-pointing n my posts. Therefore I decided today to cease with the criticism and instead try to provide some useful suggestions on some issues brought up by our Senior Minister Goh in the Straits Times a couple of days back.

The Senior Minister pointed out that there are 10 big challenges that Singapore will need to face in the coming future. I shall try to provide some of my humble opinions to 2 of these challenges. Much of what I will say has already been mentioned and discussed within the blogs and forums. Hopefully the some of these alternative views can find its way into the considerations of those that can make a difference and initiate some real progress.

How to maintain Singapore’s high economic growth and keep on improving our standard of living?

I echo the message of the Senior Minister to our ruling elite. Do not become a victim of your own success. The old economic model has worked for the past 30 years. Give yourselves a pat on the back and move on. Past glories do not guarantee future success. We need a new model. Importing GDP from the likes of Malaysia, China and India only serves to benefit a select few. For the rest of the masses, real income have dropped steadily, inflation far outstripped wage growth, public discontentment had grown to worrying levels and the wanton influx of immigrants threatens social stability.

We need to start thinking product design and development instead of product manufacture, private banking and asset management instead of back-office operations/processing, nanotechnology instead of textile manufacturing. GDP may reverse into the red for a couple of years if we purse a radical reform of our economy. Let the labor-intensive industries leave. New higher tech ones will replace them. There is a reason for a $15-$20 per hour difference in wage between a Singaporean waiter and an Australian one and it lies primarily in the oversupply of cheap labor which will persists unless companies realize that employment is not longer possible at $3 an hour.

This is some short term pain for a long term gain. The government can help ease the pain with its bulging coffers. When Singapore remerges from the reform and its economy starts singing to the new tune of the new world, the GDP figures will no longer be achieved upon the silenced misery of a poor middle-class, but from the benefits of playing higher up the value chain. In fact GDP growth is but a cash cow for the select few. Other measurements like GINI, real income per capital are much more representative of the peoples’ well-being. My proposal is a better way to improve these statistics from the pathetic levels they are at today.

How to satisfy transport demands of the next generation?

The billions and billions of dollars poured into improving our public transport system in our increasing overloaded city reminds me of a news report I heard years back. During the space race of the 1930s, US and Russia were competing with each other to explore the boundaries of our solar system. American astronauts needed to record readings up in space and could not find a pen that works in zero gravity conditions. NASA invested in US$30m to invent a pen that could write in zero-gravity. The Russians used a pencil.

There is a simpler solution to our transportation woes than building the most sophisticated and expensive MRT system to span the length and breadth of Singapore. Just stop stressing the system with more and more passengers!! We can never build enough tracks and buy enough trains to cater to the endless hordes of new immigrants. Less people, less jams, less discontent with our transportation system. By the way, the Senior Minister reminisced about the times when he used to cycle to school. Try taking the MRT in a weekday morning and I guarantee you that cycling to work is a much more attractive alternative if only we have proper cycling tracks and do not bear the significant risk of being knocked down by frenzied motorists trying to beat the morning ERP cut-off timing.

I will continue to contribute my thoughts to the rest of the challenges in another post soon. Hope this can provide some food for thought.

Risky Business

2009-07-30T14:17:00.004+08:00

In the state-controlled Straits Times today, the newly reinstated CEO of Temasek Holdings announced a greater than $40b loss in Temasek’s total portfolio for the last financial year. Temasek Holdings, keeper and executor of a significant portion of our nation’s wealth, reported an annual VaR of $40b which was lost amidst the financial tsunami which originated in the States and swept through financial markets across the Pacific and beyond.

Supporters of Temasek Holdings will argue that Temasek is but a victim of the excesses, greed and irresponsibility of Wall Street. They will claim that the loss is but collateral damage, a price Singaporeans have to pay to stay invested in the markets. The truth is that Temasek waded waist-deep into the financial abyss that is Merril Lynch and UBS with amazingly little foresight. They should rightly be entirely responsible for its tremendous losses instead of trying to shift the blame to the financial maelstrom of the past year.

There is plenty of chagrin and widespread criticism of the stupidity of Temasek’s investments thus far within the blogosphere. I do not wish to add to this growing community my opinion and disappointment of the collective idiocy of what many consider the best and brightest minds in Singapore. Instead I shall delve deeper into the intricacies of the risk numbers quoted in the Straits Times today and demonstrate that either Temasek Holdings is taking on excessive risks with what is essential the people’s money or that risk controls within Temasek are not only ineffective but downright meaningless.

The CEO of Temasek Holdings reported an annual VaR of $40b for the last financial year. She went on to explain the VaR figure implies there is a 16% chance that the portfolio will drop by $40b in the period. This is rubbish!! Either she has no idea what she is talking about or she thinks people who read the papers have not enough knowledge to differentiate nonsense from news. Let me explain what the VaR figure is actually implying.

Value-at-Risk simply tells us the maximum amount of loss possible at a predetermined level of certainty. There is a level of certainty associated with VaR figures. Statisticians call this the “confidence interval”. Typical conventional VaR models adopt a 95%-99% confidence interval. That is to say the model computes the maximum loss that will not be exceeded 95%-99% of all the possible economic/financial conditions. Only in the extreme circumstances of that 1%-5% probability, will the losses exceed the VaR figure derived from the model. These extreme events will occur in the tiny left-hand tail of the probability distribution diagram shown above. The exact derivation of the VaR number may be immensely complicated and will involve analysis of serial and matrix correlations of the portfolio constituents. The VaR model may also embed other statistical and stochastic models in its simulation. However it is not necessary to fully comprehend the underlying mechanics used to generate the VaR number. Once the final figure is derived, the significance and application of that statistic is simple and intuitive.

Let us apply the statistic to the case of Temasek. It is reasonable to assume that Temasek, like all major financial institutions, adopts a similar VaR model like the one I described above. Therefore, it is entirely wrong to claim that there is a 16% chance that the $40b loss will be incurred. In fact, the probability will be closer to 1%-5% instead of 16%!! Why then is a high probability of 16% mooted in the news? Let me provide a reasonable explanation. What Temasek is implying when they claim 16% probability of loss, is that the investments they made is not really of a high-risk nature. They are saying that the portfolio value have declined because the broad market have turned south by roughly 35%. The losses are kind of in line with the broad market decline and thus ordinary and non-excessive. This is definitely not what the VaR figure and I will explain why.

With a VaR figure of $40b, with a reasonably assumed confidence interval of 95%-99%, Temasek has in fact taken on excessive risk as compared to the broad market investor. For the losses to hit the $40b VaR mark, the applicable market decline with respect to Temasek’s investments is closer to 45%-49% instead of the broad market mean of 35%. In other words, Temasek, the main custodian of the collective wealth of our people, have punted and lost 10%-14% more than the already huge losses of the common broad market investor over the last financial year!! Temasek was essentially placing huge bets with the peoples’ money and these bets are effectively 50% more risky than the common broad market investments. Where else in the world can you find such careless and irresponsible financial management that goes literally unchallenged and unaccountable for but in sunny wonderful Singapore?

There is another angle to this issue. It may be possible for the VaR of $40b and loss probability of 16% to be correct. But this will lead to an equally startling revelation as the one above. For the risk numbers to be accurate, Temasek will have to be running their VaR models at a 1 standard deviation level. There is probably no respectable financial institution in this world that has an equivalently lax risk control system! A VaR figure generated at a 1-sigma level will be close to being a completely useless and meaningless statistic. At 1-sigma level, the fluctuations of portfolio value over the year will exceed the critical VaR threshold more than 65% of the time!! What good is a limit if the limit is breached more than 65% of the time? To make the VaR more useful and informative, the model has to increase its confidence level. In that case the VaR number Temasek should be quoting may in the region of $100b, 2-3 times that of $40b! The current portfolio value of Temasek is around $190b. Imagine you have a CEO, making investments that can possibly lose more than 50% of the total company’s value if conditions turn south, who doesn’t even understand the basics of risk management!! I shudder to think of the consequences.

Moreover, the regular review (be it monthly/quarterly/semi-annually) of the company’s portfolio should have alerted the relevant authorities within Temasek. Even if we accept the ridiculously low standards of a 1-sigma $40b VaR model, the progressively deteriorating credit conditions over the past year would have push the VaR figure way past the $40b mark. Why wasn’t there any significant move by Temasek to bring the VaR down to the original $40b threshold? Surely the potential losses from capital depreciation far outweigh the transaction costs involved in the hedge. It should be the duty of a SWF to safe-keep the nation’s reserves and not take unnecessary risks, isn’t it?

Two images flashed across my mind as I think about the reasons for such inactivity. The first is that of a nervous punter that stubbornly held on too long to a losing position in the hope that the markets will turn and he will not have to face the consequences of a margin call. The second is that of an oblivious executive playing golf in his country club and chatting happily with his other well-heeled counterparts. How many people see the same images as I do? Surely there ought to be some consequences for such careless and irresponsible behavior.

There may be some higher and more sophisticated reasons as to the actions and decisions of Temasek. A humble commoner like me may not be able to comprehend. But please at least take the effort to come up with a semblance of a more reasonable excuse for a job poorly done instead of the constant jibberish we see in the news. The truth of the matter is that the business of Temasek is indeed a very risky one and we need to know more about the truth behind the facade of control and prudence which Temasek clearly lacks

Curve Balls

2009-07-29T22:50:00.002+08:00

In our daily struggles to chase the things that we think will make our lives more complete and perfect, we sometimes forget that life is inherently imperfect. While we often envy those around us that we think is living the perfect life, how many of such targets of admiration is indeed doing so? Even in the highly unlikely probability that one is completely satisfied with the life he/she is living thus far, the chances of such bliss continuing quickly changes from improbable to impossible. If the final goal of our endeavors is but an impossible dream, what is the point of pursuing it anyway? What are we really striving for?

This post serves as a reminder to myself and all the rest out there that is chasing the dream of a more perfect existence. Life will always throw you all kinds of curve balls. Just when we think we have it all figured out and start making our 3/5/10 year plans, life will turn round to bite you in the ass and throw all the elaborate planning into chaos and disrepair. It is not to say that we should stop preparing for our future and leave everything to the unfaithful hands of fate. It is just that as we go forth in life to prepare, plan and strive for a better future, we must never forget the life is really about the journey instead of the destination. It may seem like a very clique thing to say but I think at the end of it all, when we look back at the existence we have had in the short time on this planet, what really matters the most will not be the amount of possessions or prestige we have accumulated but the experiences and relationships we have gathered in our time.

I know of some people that have become deeply unsatisfied and unhappy in this journey of life. The frustration and anger is borne out from the elusiveness of that sought-after end goal. It is understandable but it would be such a waste if one has forgotten about the value of the journey and neglected to savor the adventure. The end goal is what it is all about, regardless of how distant it is. Energy is wasted in venting the anger and frustration. The negative vibes and resentment hurts and infects all around. Then there are others that are primed for the perfect life. Everything seems to pan out exactly the way they wanted to. Suddenly a curve ball is thrown in their direction and everything goes awry. All the planning and industry seems to be in vain and the curve ball has reduced everything back to square one. Although standing at the opposite ends of the spectrum of life, they are connected by the thread of its imperfectness. The way to move on is to take what life deals on the chin and stride on bravely into a new tomorrow, undaunted by the obstacles of today. It is better to have tried and failed then to have given up before starting. Despite the pain and agony of today, take comfort in that what doesn't kill you makes you stronger. Your journey may be tougher but your life is also richer and at the end of the day, you will look back at your battle scars and feel the pride for having fought and won. I pray for myself, and all the others struggling with life's curve balls, a stronger will and a more foolhardy belief in the beauty of life's journey.

Just Follow Loh

2009-07-20T17:17:00.002+08:00

Just read something online that really strikes a chord in me. A woman was fined $30 for sucking on a sweet while taking the MRT. You can view the video here. This is a very good example of Singaporeans following rules without using their brains to understand the need for such rules to exist. There are 2 things in this video that really infuriates me.

The first is the stubborn stupidity of the MRT officer in implementing the rules without any thought or reason in doing so. We should note that the officer is keenly aware of the video camera in front of him and perhaps that made him doubly more determined to dish out the punishment so he can appear to his superiors or anyone watching that he was doing his job well. Under another circumstance, without the spotlight of the camera, perhaps he may have chosen to be more reasonable and lenient. But that is really the point. Somehow for most Singaporeans, the need to be "officially and politically correct" overrides any otherwise reasonable and logical considerations. Some people will hesitate to perform the most logical and reasonable of tasks as long as there is the possibility of violating the letter of the law. We are talking about slavish obedience to every word of the rule instead of simply abiding by the spirit and purpose the rule is supposed to uphold. However, the same people will have no qualms with carrying out impossibly stupid and irrational exercises as long as the rulebook commands it.

The MRT officer is the best case in point. He rather err on the side of caution, and stupidity, than to exercise some discretion in this matter. The basic reason of MRT implementing the "no eating" rule is to prevent accidental/intentional littering of the cabin and, maybe to a lesser degree, eliminate food odours in the cabin. Surely the MRT officer understands that. But despite that, the officer still issued the fine, "just-in-case" someone in authority is watching. Stupidity, insensitivity, even cruelty is condoned in Singapore as long as one is following the rules blindly. But non-obedience, no matter the reason or appropriateness, is not tolerated here. Simply put, in many ways our system rewards stupidity and blind obedience but punishes intelligence and reasonableness.

The second thing in this video that really gets on my nerves is the lack of indignation and fight of the passenger that was fined. Instead of being exasperated by this mindless application of the rule by MRT, she seemed sheepish and tried to offer excuses for the sweet. She is not alone in this behaviour. Somehow we were brought up to instinctively follow the rules, no matter what the rule is. We are trained to feel guilt and shame when we did not do everything by the book. Therefore instead of challenging the right of the MRT to impose the $30 fine, she tried to mitigate her actions by claiming giddiness because it is somehow more "justified" for a sick person to violate a rule. Hell, I don't think there is a need to justify her actions to the MRT officer at all. He should be the one to explain and convince the lady of the need and validity of imposing the fine.

I can quote more examples of everyday Singaporeans that chooses to follow rules blindly without taking a second to consider the validity and reasonableness of those rules. There is a pervasive culture of fear within the fabric of our society that makes us act with unthinking obedience, that makes us such willing slaves to the existing rules and authority. There are probably many other societies out where blind obedience is more prevalent. But here are also plenty of those where people follow rules not because they have to but because they want to. Not everyone follows our Singaporean mantra of "Just Follow Loh". At least I hope not.

Proving God

2009-07-08T17:59:00.002+08:00

I studied in a typical methodist primary school when I was young, even though none of my parents are Christians. They sent me to the school because it was one of the "ang moh" primary schools around at that time and thought it would be beneficial for me to be in an English-speaking environment since I spoke only Chinese at home. Along with the rest of my classmates, I had to pray every morning during assembly. There would be a reverend leading the prayer over the PA system and all the students will bow their heads and follow. Being young and impressionable, I remember thinking it was cool to pray since every other classmate was doing the same. I badly wanted to fit in so I followed suit. There was no consideration on whether I wanted to be a Christian or if I believed in Christ. It was just something everyone did and I followed. To be fair, I was only an 8-year old.

Later in life, I didn't really get any more direct opportunities or motivation to further pursue Christianity. It gradually faded away from my life. In fact, probably to my education or experiences etc, religion was never really a subject I thought much about. I was way more interested in the sciences. Physics, mathematics, economics or even philosophy appealed to me more. Gradually, it became a choice for me. I would believe in either science or religion, not both. I was convinced somehow that the two fields are opposites and thus cannot coexist naturally. Maybe its due to age or wisdom, I do not really think that anymore. At least not in such absolute terms. I do not consider myself an atheist. I think I am more of a pagan, a go-between a believer and a skeptic. I believe there exist a supernatural power, an almighty consciousness . However I do not believe there necessarily needs to be formalized rituals or established institutions to worship that power. Certainly not a standardized textbook to decipher the meaning and purpose of that consciousness!?!

This rather succintly describes what I view religion to be. An institution or system that tries to rationalize and explain something we should not be capable of understanding anyway. However I do not deny the existence of that supernatural power. Some call it Jesus, some call it Allah, other say it's God. To me, they are one and the same, just different names for the same almighty consciousness. We cannot fully explain God with science or logic. The very idea of divinity suggests that we cannot cognitively decipher its origin or purpose. If we were to, God would be reduced to a more mortal dimension and thus "undivine".

A dear friend once tried to prove the existence of God from a biological point of view. He tells me that from our study of entropy and evolution, we will conclude that all systems have the tendency to move towards a less energetic, more lethargic and stable state of being. Matter will seek lose their internal energy and try to reach an equilibrium state. We learned it as our typical high school science textbook cliche, "everything reaches equilibrium, eventually". However for the evolution from single-cell amoebas billions of years ago to humans today to be possible, matter have to behave contrary to this universal law of nature. There definitely exist the possibility for uninitiated random events that excite the systems out of its slumber and spark increases in entropy and activity, but such coincidences should logically be far and few between. To kickstart and propogate the process of evolution, such coincidences have to happen billions and billions of times, over millions and millions of years for our world to be where it is now. Logically and statistically, the sheer improbability of such coincidences should make it impossible but yet, Earth is teeming with life. Surely it cannot be just dumb luck? His explanation? The existence of God.

I know of another similar phenomenon within physics. In classical Newtonian theory of physics, all things are determinate. We can predict a future state of our world with absolute certainty since we can accurately calculate the position, speed, energy etc. of every particle in our universe, as long as we know the initial state it is in. Future is not longer an uncertainty but instead a definite result governed by established theorems and laws. The difficulty lies in harnessing enough computing power to harvest the data needed and compute the necessary calculations. However that is strictly a logistical issue which does not refute the fact that we can theoretically calculate and project the future. However there is another physical theory that fundamentally refutes the Newtonian view of our world, Quantum Physics. A core characteristic of quantum mechanics is the lack of deterministic causality and that at subatomic levels, a particle can exists in different states and space at the same time. Quantum physics suggests there is an inexplicable randomness lying at the heart of all things in this universe and we cannot perfectly anticipate an outcome due to the existence of this randomness. Many think that behind these 2 paradoxical views of the world, lies the divine. God is hiding behind the fabric of the institution which we call science.

While we cannot sufficiently prove the existence of God through science, we also cannot explain everything (ie. the randomness) in our world by science. When we tear down our understanding of the world to the very basics, there are fundamental building blocks that do not have a reason of being. They just are. The simplicity and inexplicabilty of these fundamentals is God. We cannot attempt to explain or rationalize this. It's as if we can never hope to understand the purpose of these proverbial building blocks. Similarly 'God' does not care about any religious worship or rationalization of the higher designs of the divine because they are but constructs of man and represents man's need to place himself at the centre of the universe. This is part I of a 2-blog entry regarding religion. This is my attempt of a logical explanation of the existence of God. I will continue to expound on this issue on the next entry.

Snobbery

2009-07-03T10:51:00.003+08:00

Recently I discovered an interesting blog, "Intellectual Snob", that is written by some elitist idiot that turned out to be a fraud. Before she was exposed, she claimed to be some Ivy League graduate and proceeded to unload her contempt for people whom she deems of "lower intelligence" on her blog. She calls such people "frogs" and local graduates, amongst others, are collectively denounced in that classification. She was later found to be a fraudster and the ironic thing is that she is actually an undergraduate from NTU! The extreme hypocrisy of the author aside, the blog is also incredibly arrogant and vicious. There is massive outrage on the blogosphere with she wrote. Many hurled insults at her and left hate-mail like comments on her blog.

I admit I am slightly like her. I am not proud of it but I have to be honest with who I am and what I believe in. Intellegence is probably my most admired quality in a person. I used to think it is also the most valuable asset you can have. I am the biggest advocate of the idea of "You are what you think". Some call it perspective, some call it understanding and others say it's mindset. To me it's one and the same. The main determinant of how your life pans out, outside of dumb luck, is what you think of and consequently how you act on it. The thought is key, subsequent execution of that merely procedural.

However this episode of the errant blogger gave me an addition insight into my belief on intelligence. A certain amount of humility and tolerance is needed for intelligence to be truly beneficial and appreciated. This blogger uses her supposed "intelligence" to belittle and ridicule everyone she meets, from colleague to the man on the street. Perhaps she does not realize it but I think her blog screams for recognition and acceptance for what she deems are exceptional achievements. She believes she is bestowed with extraordinary gifts and thus have a god-given right to all good things in life. The blog is a means for her to justify that irrational notion. But her towering arrogance has, instead of convincing, only serve to alienate her from others and acts in direct contradiction of her original intention.

A true intellect knows the virtue of humility. He recognizes and embrace diversity. Only by acknowledging your own insufficiencies and imperfectness, will you be able to see the validity of others' strengths and realize the absurdity of having a single, myopic definition of talent or ability. I am not going to dismiss her thinking because she is from NTU. It was inaccurate from the start, regardless of the authencity of her Ivy League pedigree. It is a shame that she needs to hide behind the facade of an American education before hurling insults at her fellow countrymen. This suggests that her superiority complex never originated from her confidence in her mental powers but rather, derived from an association with reputable institutions fabricated in her elaborate lie.

I am nowhere near an ideal level of humility and self-awareness. I recognize it and I will continue to strive towards that goal. However the greatest satisfaction I derive from my inadequacy is the knowledge that somewhere out there, there is at least one self-deluding fool that is way dumber than a frog.

I Confess

2009-06-26T09:20:00.004+08:00

I will try to be as honest and candid about what I am going to say next. A good friend that has known me for a long long time said something to me recently that made me think very hard about my flaws. I have always liked thinking about stuff. The unadulterated sanctity of pure thought appeals to me.But this is slightly different. I am considering now not because I want to but because I need to.

This friend summarized to me, in her view, what I have been doing for the past few years. I have been chasing. From one thing to the next. I am just another typical predictable bloke, just another lost follower. Her assertion offends me greatly. While I would like to offer counter-arguments and examples of how I am different, I concede that she is quite accurate in her assessment. To dismiss her words without any reflection is pure stupidity and I definitely do not want to be typical and stupid. One is bad enough. There is some truth in my friend's words and when you see my life in a continuous span of 4-5 years, instead of discrete snapshots of a year, I have to agree with her to a certain extent.

About 4 years ago, I landed my first job in a big MNC. There was an internal leadership program I was desperate to get on. It would allow me the opportunity to travel and work on big projects. I talked to all the right people, did all the right roles and put myself in the best possible position to get admitted to the program. Things didn't pan out and I left the company soon after. The dream of a huge jet-setting corporate career died along with that. Like a typical Singaporean guy who did engineering, I figured since I am not going to be different and work overseas, I am going to try to be rich in Singapore. I should go work in Finance. Later I got into a big bank to work in the technology department. It wasn't really big money or interesting work but I was desperate to be anywhere near a trading desk which at that point of my career and life is the epitome of prosperity and happiness. I channeled a great deal of my energies to chasing that myopic version of success. I did my CFA, ACCA etc. but it was never really out of genuine passion for the discipline. It was a necesary step to get to my perceived goal. I don't care for that step, I just wanted to get over with it and move on. The goal is what I am interested in. As expected, it is not that easy to get into a trading desk and I went on to my next chase. I was going to become a quant. I enrolled in a MFE and got another job in a smaller institution that gave me the opportunity to practice as a quant despite my inexperience. Despite enjoying the technically and intellectually challenging nature of my new pursuit, it was quickly replaced with another obsession. Even though I genuinely like what I do now, the environment outside of work was becoming unbearable for me. I now want to be doing what I do, but outside of Singapore. That is my latest chase.

From one perspective, what I have been doing is roughly consistent. I wanted to experience life out of Singapore and still do. I have always been more theoretical than practical and what better industry to be in for me than Finance where money can be made from constructions on spreadsheets and powerpoints instead of more tangible (and beneficial) creations. Being totally inept at social integration, quantitative finance suits me better than the more abstract areas of sales or deal-making where EQ is key and ability is more art than science. But regardless of all that, I cannot deny I am just another distracted, unfocused individual that have neither the determination or dedication to stay true to a single course. There seems to be always something on the horizon that is more important and desirable. Is it my nature to always want to chase and then to forget and move on? I am beginning to think so.

I have a good friend that had the dignity and grace to step off the beaten path and choose to follow his passion. While the rest of us are busy chasing the money, he stayed true to his passion and continued to work on his craft. Today, he is working for one of the biggest companies in his field and in my opinion, more successful than many of the rest of us.

I do not know why I have become the way I am. While it seems like nothing has changed, it feels as if everything has. My thoughts have become fuddled and feeble and this worries me greatly. Many years ago, I would have dismissed someone who says and thinks a lot but means very little. I would have laughed at someone who lives by how he feels rather than thinks. Yet I think I am gradually becoming the very person I didn't want to be just 5 years back. Even after writing this considerable amount of words, I know I do not have a concrete point to bring across. I must confess I am disappointed, with myself and what I represent nowadays. This is my confession.

The final steps are the hardest

2009-06-17T09:57:00.003+08:00

Some people say that coincidences are God's way of remaining anonymous. If that is true, I think God is trying to tell me something. Over the space of days, I have 3 good friends that told me of their doubt to leave our shores, in 3 seperate incidents. Ironically, 2 of these friends have tried tirelessly to escape Singapore, only to lose steam and heart when the final steps to their departure beckon. Regardless of their final decision, I hope this piece can help them in some small way in reaching that.

Like reading a brochure about skydiving, the idea of doing it appeals more than the actual act itself. Words like "excitement" and "out of this world experience" jump out from the brochure to seduce and stir our desires. We envy the photos of elated customers posing with their jump instructors, holding up their fingers in victory signs. "I want a piece of that action. I want to be like them.", we would think to ourselves. Some will go as far as to put down a deposit for a dive next weekend. But the real test does not happen when you are signing the consent forms for the jump or writing the cheque to pay for the dive. The true examination of your inner most desire will only come when you have strapped on the parachute and hang from the edge of a 10,000 km vertical drop. "Is this what I really want? Is my parachute working? What will others think if I back out now? Will I get a refund if I do? Has anyone died of heart attack in the middle of a dive? ......". Hundreds of random thoughts or questions will scream in your mind. Your heart beats faster than ever before. Your mouth is dry and you feel cold despite the beads of perspiration forming at your brow. Your instructior is screaming at you over the roar of the rushing wind, urging you to jump. You are blocking the rest behind you. Time is ticking. Decision time. What do you do?

The final steps are sometimes the longest and toughest. At least in the skydiving example above, there is always someone egging you on to jump. The chaos happening around you up there will blank your mind and erase most but the most basic of thoughts like fear. It's easier somehow when you don't really have to think. In reality, it's a whole lot harder. Considerations and reconsiderations will complicate the issue, particularly if it's big and important decisions like leaving your homeland. Parents, money, kids, career and more, all of which are reasons to delay or cancel your plans to leave the relative safety and comfort of Singapore. You signed the forms, paid the fees but when it's time to make the leap, you may not find the strength and resolve.

I would want to offer some logical advice for one that is hestitating on the edge of a jump. I wish to ask him to revisit his original intentions and consider the virtues of his decision. I want to help him weigh the pros and cons of his decision and assure him that it is well-considered and that he is for the better in the long-run etc. However for someone that has only looked at the brochure but never signed a form or paid a dime, it will be inappropriate, even hypocritical, of me to advise the positives of leaping. It is difficult and risky. There are as many pitfalls as promises. You may be hurting those you love at the expense of your wunderlust, both financially and emotionally. There is even a possibility you have to return here eventually, defeated and broken. Although I have always preached hope and optimism in my previous entries, I have to concede the equivalent possibility of dismay and failure. You will never know until you try and if you think it's not worth your while to try, perhaps it is. Not trying, as much as trying is a choice and in time the choice that we make now will be the best justification for it and we live with the consequences of that choice . I see it more clearly now that the most balanced and accurate way to see leaving Singapore is to view it as a parity between pros and cons, filled with as many dangers as hope. It's a choice and it's your choice. You make it and live with it. Period.

Before I end, I would like to share an experience I had years back when I was travelling regularly for work. The perk of that job was the opportunity to travel, despite the miserly pay and frivolous work. I remember rather vividly a feeling I had as I sat in the waiting lounge of an American airport. It was the third transit for a 25-hr journey from Malaysia to the States and I was exhausted. As I sat in the chair, watching people rush along with their luggage and trollies, I felt a sense of ignorance and fear. I had little idea how long my transit was going to be, I was worried of losing my stuff if I fell asleep there (which I was cos I mis-timed taking my sleeping pills onboard) and have no idea who to approach if I had any problems. People were rushing from one point to another, everyone seemed to be walking with a sense of purpose and know-how, like they knew exactly what they were doing and where they are going. There were white people., black people, Asians and Africans. Despite feeling lost and confused, I felt a sense of wonder and excitement, I felt more alive than I had for a long time. It was as if in that moment, the enormity and diversity of the world stopped being a cliche I hear/see on National Geographic and become a reality for me. I felt I was given a glimpse of this real world and I wanted to see more, learn more and experience more. Somehow as years go by, I changed jobs and remained permanently in Singapore, that sense of wonder disappeared. I became more comfortable in my ignorance, more contented with my mediocrity. That connection I felt I wanted, even needed, became but a flippant child's dream, a naive fantasy I cannot afford.

Dreams are different for everyone and this is one of mine. For the better or worse, I want to try to jump. The "skydiving-style" of leaving Singapore is still out for me (yes, I am really a coward) but I will try in more subdued ways to rediscover that feeling I had years ago. The final steps are always the hardest in matters like this but I am glad that I have started taking the first few. Hopefully I will find the resolve to make the jump when I come to it.

Sigh, I really don't like heights.........

You Don't Out-think Yourself

2009-06-04T09:23:00.003+08:00

Woke up this morning with a irresistable urge to write. It has been hard to contribute to the blog. Tried to start one a week back on the subject of "happiness" but could not find the conviction or honesty to complete that. NotTheFirstPirate is definitely not the person to turn to for consult on happiness. The topics of this blog are 2 of my favourite subjects. I am going to expound my thoughts this morning on the matter of "thinking" and "hoping".

A close friend has expressed doubt and frustration on his efforts to escape Singapore. He feels there is so much uncertainty and difficulties placed in his path to leave our country. The excruciating dull of waiting for things to move, to happen, makes the doubt and fear even more pronunced and unbearable. Hopefully this post can serve to be an encouragement and guiding light to him and all those struggling to escape. I also hope in weeks/months/years to come, I can revisit what I am going to write here to find strength and sense to continue my journey out of Singapore.

I think this line from a movie summarizes the meaning of life, the reason for living, rather succintly. "Life is not measured by minutes, but by moments". Somehow, for lots of people, myself included, it is often the reverse. The purpose of existence can be condensed into quantifiable units of dollars and cents, of hours and minutes. Everything needs to be milked for all its worth. We want the best pay for the simplest job, the longest movie for the cheapest ticket. We want the best deal for our buck, regardless if we really need it or want it. This is the Singapore motto, our local warcry. The result? Less grace, less empathy, more unhappy Singaporeans.

There is an online poll on happiness conducted worldwide. The best examples of happiness are collected and posted on the polling site. Different people find happiness in a variety of things. One tells of his relief and joy of a negative cancer test just days short of his grandson's 1-year birthday. Another describes happiness as the thrill of landing the biggest fish of his life after a 5-hour wait with his rod. Interesting, there isn't an example of someone who made his first million after the latest market rally, or of a fresh graduate landing a job on Goldman's trading desk. Perhaps there are no Singaporeans polled here. But the point is that there is lots more to life to what we know. The world is a big, awesome place. There are sights and adventures out there beyond our wildest imagination or comprehension. There are other ways to live, other avenues to be happy. It's not better or worse. It's just different.

Like many living on this island, I was brought up to be a logical and thinking person. No whims or fancies. Only facts and results matter. My education, family and environment taught me to evaluate everything. Everything can and should be distilled to a simple equation. I form impressions of people I meet but hardly know and judge them upon it. I am cynical and mistrusting of things I hear and see. I construct a mental hierachial chart and peg people on it based on their job or background. My happiness or the lack of, is a relative thing. It's seldom about whether I am truly happy or satisfied. It's more about if I am happier or more satisfied than the next poor soul or lucky bastard beside me. I compare, contrast, envy and ostracize. This is a crude, even vulgar, way of life but I cannot help myself. It is ingrained into my very being to be as competitive and calculative as such. Be honest to yourself. How much of a me do you see in you?

Singapore is a great place to be in now, particularly in the midst of the chaos around the rest of the globe. We have relative stability and calm here. But to be complacent in this dull comfort and to stop thinking and seeing what is the real value of living, is akin to a frog sitting in a pot of cool water heating over a fire. It may be too late when we realise that we want to see more, to experience more and feel more of this big wide world. The realities of life will inevitably chain you to the shores of Singapore and you will be trapped before you know you are. And ironically, this will not be the greatest tragedy. The greater one will be not knowing what is possible, not living a life where every day can be a fresh beginning and each breath a new adventure.

Thinking and hoping makes me happy. Possibilities, despite its unfaithful nature, promise more than certainty. However, as indicated in the blog title, you cannot out-think yourself. From the limited vantage point of Singapore, it is near pointless to try to plan, predict and safeguard yourself from all the possible perils out there. Fortune favours the brave. Take a leap. It may not always be safe but hell, it's sure going to be fun.

De-Globalizing Singapore

2009-05-18T11:59:00.007+08:00

An interesting BBC report sounded over the radio as NotTheFirstPirate negotiated his way through rush-hour Shenton Way traffic. BBC reported a growing phenomenon around the world which they term as "de-globalization". NotTheFirstPirate found the report particularly interesting, especially in the context of Singapore. Is this finally an area where Singapore is going her own way, acting in contrary to global norms and throwing caution to the wind? Let us consider.

As the international economy contracts amidst the global recession, countries worldwide are reverting from their expansionary approach and are turning increasingly inward to look for a way out. China is betting on domestic demand to replace international drivers of the mainland's mammoth GDP. US and Europe are hypocritically closing their doors to foreign immigrants while re-emphasizing the importance of international free trade. Japan and other Asian nations are weaning themselves off the reliance on the greenback and refocusing their efforts to strengthen their own domestic currency and economy. The bull run of the past decade has ended and the myths of treasures in faraway lands banished for the moment. So in the face of a worldwide retreat from the global marketplace, what is our beloved city-state's reaction to this change?

Ironically, for a country where safety is sought in majority rather than facts, where convention is to follow rather than lead, Singapore is surprisingly diametric in her dealings with the rest of the world, especially with respect to immigration.

Singapore, especially in recent years, has become a preferred immigration destination for people from around the region. The hordes of China, Indian and Malaysian students flooding NUS or the multitude of "foreign talent" packing our MRT and shopping malls provide ample evidence for my assertion. As NotTheFirstPirate had already expounded, in previous entries, on the pressures these immigrants put on the original Singaporeans, the arguments will not be repeated here. Instead, a more constructive consideration will be to hypothesize reasons for this phenomenon and project possible consequences for it.

A quick comparison between immigration laws across several countries (Australia, USA, Canada etc) will confirm what most original Singaporeans have feared. Singapore has arguably the most lax immigrant requirements available internationally. While NotTheFirstPirate cannot profess to be an expert in immigrant law/requirements, it seems that the basic requirement for Permanent Residency in sunny Singapore is a monthly salary of $2500, barely the equivalent of the starting salary of a fresh graduate. Why is that considered foreign talent that Singapore badly needs when recipients of these PRs (which upon graduation from NUS/NTU will probably earn the $2500 required) could be precisely the people that are denying our local JC/Poly grads from a place in our local universities? Your guess is as good as mine.

An anecdote, related to me by a close friend American Tail, sums up the point pretty succinctly. American Tail's relative, let's call him MsiaMathsKid, just applied for Singapore PR. He is born in Malaysia, educated in Australia and currently works in Singapore. His ultimate purpose is to go back to Australia and is in fact working in Singapore temporarily to await the approval of his Australian PR. Meanwhile, whilst he is here, he decided to also apply for Singapore PR because it allows him to find a better paid job while in Singapore and more importantly, it is so damn easy to get one. But MsiaMathsKid has no desire to remain in Singapore. He does not intend to buy property or build a family or "give back" in any way to our city-state. Singapore to him is but a stepping stone, a rest-stop in his quest to finally migrate to his dream country, Australia. For someone who doesn't really want to be a Singaporean, who may probably deprive another Singaporean of a job, we are rewarding him with a PR nevertheless. There are many others like MsiaMathsKid. MumbaiItBoy, ShanghaiPhdGal, LondonIBMan to name but a few.

While "attracting foreign talent and investment" provides a great soundbite for a STB advert, are we doing the sensible thing by becoming a stop gap solution for migrants who aspire to be in US or Europe but who cannot as yet qualify? While some of these people will grow to like and eventually settle in Singapore, many of such immigrants will not hesitate for a second to pack up and leave once the path to their original destination becomes viable. Is it fair to subject the original Singaporeans, ones who will serve, protect and contribute to Singapore, to the additional pressures these temporary migrants bring? Can you blame Singaporeans from leaving a home who is no longer cares about being fair or gives a hoot to their well-being?

Before Singapore becomes a truly global city, albeit without the original Singaporeans, particularly in a time when the rest of the world is turning protectionistic to preserve the local community and its people, it may be advisable for Singapore to do what it does best. Shut up and follow.

The S Factor

2009-05-12T18:21:00.006+08:00

I think I have distilled the essence of my discontent in Singapore down to one overwhelming factor. SIZE.

Singapore is too small, home to a population that is too big, period. I think every single grievance I have of our red little dot can be attributed in some kind or form to this issue of size. Too small, too crowded, too fast, too expensive, too materialistic, too difficult, too much....the list goes on and I think size lies at the heart of the problems. Let me explain......

Singapore is currently already the 2nd most densely populated region in the world, according to this wiki list, and the most densely populated country. And this is before the population increases by another 2-2.5 million. Statistics aside, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that Singapore is too small for our comparatively gigantic population. Case in point, just take the MRT.

We always hear of the proverbial rat race in Singapore. Singaporeans lament about the impossibility to stop for a breather. But can we help it? I think in some way the relentless chase that we Singaporeans engage in with such fervor is more of a necessity than choice. The ironic thing is that the reason why many of our fellow "rats" are scrambling so desperately to get ahead is to finally be able to stop chasing. It is as if there is some fairytale ending at the end of the marathon, a promised land where everything will be better, an end that will justify the means, no matter how torturous the journey may be. By the way, FYI, the marathon is extended again and the marathon organizers are already thinking of shifting the finishing line. You run till you are 70 or older. Run on fellow rats.....

Some people will contend with my point of the end justifying the means. They will say that nowadays people are more concerned about the journey, not just the destination. The ones I am talking about belong to the older generation, younger Singaporeans are different. They have hopes, dreams, expectations about the life they want to lead. But that is exactly my point. When the promised land is little more than a facade, the journey painfully depressing, people will look for little conveniences, small perks to numb the pain. For instance, with the public transport system creaking under the sheer weight of the growing populating, people will look to private car ownership to provide some relief. Try going home after a long day of work using public transport. After 1 hour of sardine-packing on the trains and buses, you will quickly understand what I am saying. With car prices typically exceeding the average annual salary in Singapore, how can we stop running? Perhaps the only thing that still brings some satisfaction to the MRT commuter is the thought of the sucker stucked in his overpriced Toyota on the CTE with ERP gantry lights flashing above him. We can extend the same argument for property, children, parents etc. They are really relatively expensive here. All the more reasons for us to run faster and harder in this race. Necessity, not choice.

Size is central to this argument. Ever tried running in a marathon? When you are in the midst of the crowd that is pushing forward, it is impossible to go against the tide. This is the scenario we are in. The modest size of the economy, the scarcity of land and rescoures, the comparative undersupply of public goods all serves to inflate prices to an artificial high, from a global perspective. With the influx of immigrants adding to the crowd pushing forward, the momentum builds and fight to go against the tide becomes harder. To alleviate the problem, we need to either widen the road or reduce the number of runners, something the people-in-charge have not figured out. Flooding an already overcrowded economy with cheap labour is a cheap and brainless way to manage a country. To go the China or Indian way of "progress" just reeks of socialism. GDP increase does not translate into a better standard of living if it is achieved by increasing the hordes of slaves in your backyard.

So it is all bad in Singapore? Of course not. Singapore, like any other country, has it's good and bad. We have an exceedingly industrious, efficient and diligent population. We are traditionally more technically savvy than our global counterparts. We are cooperative and rule-abiding. Singapore ranks amongst the safest countries in the world. Kudos to the government for an education system that primes us for academic success probably anywhere else in the world. There is much good Singapore offers. But the fact remains that Singapore equips you to exceed everywhere else but here. From my personal experiences, Singaporeans are more valued overseas. Abroad, they are different, even extraordinary. Success comes easier for them out there, not because they tried harder or got luckier but simply because of what they are and what they represent, naturally. Over here, you are one of the many. Just another rat, from an oversized population in an undersized country.

In a world where everything needs to be in oversized proportions, seems like it is difficult to be truly contented if the oversizing happens only for one and not the other.

Singapore Upside-Down

2009-05-11T12:48:00.003+08:00

Just heard some depressing news from a friend recently. She has just gained admissions to a top business school in the States and has been running around to gather her funding sources for her studies. However, due to the turmoil in the credit markets, loans from the US for an alien like her is close to impossible and her US hope (as opposed to the Singapore dream) seems a tad more difficult now.

One may wonder why can't my friend borrow her funds locally? Before we answer that question, let us look at her available choices. Local banks will only lend up to 10 times of her current salary which will not be enough for her overseas education. With the US borrowing option out, that just leaves her with the trusty CPF. Unfortunately, the CPF Education Scheme cannot be used for overseas education. The reason provided by the CPF board is on the basis of risk. These are the exact words from the CPF website, "Local education at approved institutions is heavily subsidised by the Government. Students should thus be able to repay the CPF savings used. On the other hand, overseas education is very costly. If the student is unable to repay the CPF savings used in cash, it would have serious consequences on the parents' or his own retirement savings". This sounds like a "if you are not spending in Singapore, you cannot take your back your FD you have deposited with me" argument. If only we can choose when and where to make our deposit.....

I can provide anecdotes that will contradict the rationale of CPF's risk argument. I know of local grads that are getting paid less than $1500 (which is artificially propped up to $2500 - $2700 by MAS under some employment scheme with our tax money) in our prized financial sector or architects that graduated with equivalent masters degree earning less than $2000 in their first job. The typical undergraduate/graduate education in Singapore is therefore expensive, thus risky, with respect to the expected return from that education. The fact that the government is a baseline guarantee for that return, therefore capping the risk involved, is of little consolation since the marketplace for professionals is increasingly global and the entrance of foreign "talent" into our tiny job market resembles that of a broken dam.

But instead of quoting statistics, I would like to offer a personal point of view in this matter. I am fortunate enough to attend some of the best educational institutions that our country has to offer. A good proportion of my more academically capable classmates have gone abroad for their education, either on scholarships or on their rather significant family fortunes. We still meet up for dinners or drinks on their vacations back home to sunny Singapore. While this may be a very biased opinion but till date, no one from this group of friends have expressed disappointment or regret in their decision to leave. While some of them have indeed returned, no one that I know had done so due of career prospects or quality of life etc. They returned because of their roots, of their family ties. One wonders if the parents were able to uproot from Singapore, will there any other reason for our brightest to return to their nest here?

Anyway, we are sidetracking from my friend's issue. My point is that since banks and CPF are willing to lend money for local education and purchases of over-priced condominiums, I cannot see any rational reason for refusing to do so for my friend, who in my humble opinion and experience, is making at least as good an investment as the former two. The measurement of risk locally is flawed. It is based on local assumptions and projections, without any global consideration. Risk is justified simply based on the fact that since "everyone in Singapore is doing it, it cannot be wrong" mentality. Talk to your friends now that you are thinking of going abroad for an education for a year, they will exclaim at your courage and endeavour in this time of uncertainty. Tell the same group of friends that you want to buy a HDB or condo that cost easily 3-5 times more, they will say that its a worthwhile investment since "property is quite cheap now".

Everything is upside-down here. A good friend is hoping his brother, who is studying in Australia because he cannot get into a decent course in our prestigous universities, will be able to apply Australian PR for him and his family because he is not qualified enough to do so.

I have a feeling that someone somewhere Down-Under is laughing at the irony of it all in upside-down Singapore.

5 mins before train wreck

2009-05-07T13:32:00.000+08:00

"The boy ran up and down the railway track, having the time of his life. 'I will do this until I am grown up, strong and healthy, before I find other amusements", thought the little boy. In a distance, the train tearing on at full steam towards the unknowing boy."

This is a rather clumsy analogy to my circumstance but have I in some way, rather accurately prophetized my future fate? Am I the stupid boy that continues to play on the tracks despite the oncoming train? Will I be too late to jump out of the way when the train is upon me, headlights flashing and horns blaring in my face?

The proverbial killing train will be carrying the incorrigible old man, sheer weight of opportunity costs and the paralysing fear of change. I can see it, smell it and calculate the probability. Should I make a move now?

I think I can hear the train's roar in the distance .................