Ian On The Red Dot

Went for Barcamp Singapore on Saturday. It was a really enriching event and I got to see a lot of familiar faces. I didn’t realise that I actually knew some of the people whose blogs I have been reading. I guess this is what happens when you do not look at the ‘About’ page. Or another indication that Singapore is really one small dot.

Anyway, I’ll probably share about the event when I manage to go through all the notes that was made that day.

The one thing that really stuck with me was this quote that was shared by one of the presentators that day. While she was not using it to refer to our economy but trying to describe the fight for our attention when we consume media through print, tv and the internet, I found it really suitable to sum up the whole issue of what Singaporeans are feeling about the economy:

The cake is getting bigger, but the slices are getting smaller.

Well, not all the slices are getting smaller. And hence the increasing divide. Some people (i.e. the rich) are getting bigger and bigger slices, while the rest of us are getting the same if not smaller sizes.

Just last thursday, I had a rather impassioned discussion with a close friend about the Singapore economy. It was argued that an income divide is inevitable for a capitalist society and if we did not want an income divide, we would have communism where everyone was poor. Honestly, I think even in a communist country, we would have an income divide as those in power would most likely try to aggrandize wealth for themselves as history has shown.

The thing about a capitalist society is that it rewards people (who either by good fortune, hardwork or generational accumulation of wealth have the resources to invest ) when they invest wisely. Investment in any endeavour entails risk and the returns for taking on that risk is the reward.

As an extension of the desires of shareholders, companies would want to maximise profit and one way of doing that is by reducing cost (or expand revenue). While it can be argued that not all companies just seek to maximise profit and books like ‘Small Giants’ have highlighted such companies, it would be fair to probably say that most companies operate with the goal of profit maximization and while it is possible to do that just by increasing revenue while keeping cost the same or ensuring it increases less, most companies would probably like to reduce cost whenever it is possible. And wages are definitely a significant part of cost.

While some of the online discussion has talked about how wages have been depressed because of the pursuit of growth, it is probably not presumptuous to point out that wages might have also been depressed in the absence of policies geared to pursue growth. Of course, it is probably debatable if the government’s policies were the only way to pursue growth.

The government’s perspective is that if Singapore did not carry out the measures of CPF cuts, lowering corporate and income tax and allow the influx of foreign labour, companies and investments would not have flowed into Singapore, and there would have been less jobs and low wages also. That situation might not have caused a debate on the existence of a rich-poor divide, but maybe one of why the Singapore economy was doing so badly with high unemployment rates and low wages. Of course, now, we can only speculate on what might have happened if policies were different.

One point that has been made is that the foreign workers have been taking the jobs that could have gone to unskilled Singaporeans. The government has tried to balance the need to provide companies in Singapore with low cost labour while providing jobs for unskilled Singaporeans who cannot compete in that market by implementing initiatives for retraining. Such initiatives is easier said than done. There is a reason why there is the phrase ‘you can’t teach an old dog new tricks’.

Also, repeating the argument that foreign labour took a fair number of jobs created, it should be considered that it might have been the provision of jobs for such foreign labour that allowed the other jobs for Singaporeans to be created. The foreign labour was not the cause of less Singaporeans getting jobs but the cause of more Singaporeans getting jobs. Of course, I’m speculating. Is there anyway to mine the data we have to know this for sure?

The thing is, at the end of the day, the rich will do anything to increase their wealth. And it takes enlightened leaders (be it a boss at a company or the government of a country) to see that the people have contributed to the success and spread the wealth. Companies are unlikely to do it. Shareholders of any company would probably want to keep as much as they can for themselves without losing their staff which will prevent them from earning more money. Few bosses would share just because they acknowledge your contribution if they acknowledge it at all. This is cynical, but I hold the belief that it is true. Every boss thinks that their decisions played a more significant part then the actions of the people in implementing those decisions.

So it is up to the leaders of our country to solve this distribution of wealth or rather distribution of rewards for endeavour. The problem is, our government and I say this with great presumption on my part, only wants to redistribute wealth because they see the resulting social instability due to an increasing income divide as a threat to their ability to stay in power as well as the future economic growth of Singapore and not because they feel that all Singaporeans deserve bigger slices of the cake because of their contribution.

It is a small difference, but to me this difference in mindset is important. The former will lead to actions by the government to give as little as possible to appease the people, the latter will make them give as much as possible as long as it does not hurt the future growth of our economy.

The problem is, people who are doing ok or well tend to say that the poor or those complaining should do more for themselves. That is presumptuous. Who is to say that they are really not trying? And just because they have not contributed directly to the economy does not mean they have not sacrificed for it. As a people, we could have voted the PAP out because of the unpopular measures (i.e. allowing such an influx of foreign labour) yet a fair majority still voted for the PAP because I believe we still trust in their policies and for want of a better phrase, we sucked it up and sacrificed. We allowed the foreign workers to come in and depress wages. We took wage cuts. We accepted GST and fare hikes. The sacrifice made to accept these policies was the contribution.

Whether directly, or indirectly, all Singaporeans have contributed to the recovery. While I do not begrudge ministers their pay and pay rise because they consider themselves having done their job (and done it well?), maybe it is time they do not deny all Singaporeans better distribution. While it is probably not going to be easy to implement measures to redistribute wealth, and difficult to balance measures of redistribution to discouraging private and corporate investments in Singapore, it is not impossible and I’m sure the ministers’s pay will probably cover the brain juice involved in solving these issues.

But I guess we can only hope that in the end, the rich finds it beneficial to themselves to help the poor, if not, the issue of the income divide will never be solved without the need to pry the money out of their hands.

The only thing I remember from my Econs S Paper lessons is this sentence about statistics:

“If you torture them, they will confess”

And I thought about this sentence when reading about the discussion on the Gini coefficient for income and Singapore’s ranking with respect to other countries.

Just to clarify something, did Yaw Shin Leong made a mistake in this post? He said:

“Generally a higher Gini coefficient tends to indicate a lower level of social and economic inequality. “

I thought a higher Gini coefficient means a higher level of income inequality. Better check some econs text to confirm.

Another blogger over here asked if you would rather be in Singapore with a higher level of income disparity than Azerbaijan where everyone is equally poor. Hmm… Why can’t I want to be in a country which has both a low level of income inequality and everyone is well off. Of course I don’t believe that the blogger is saying that only such a choice exist. He probably is saying that we shouldnt get our knickers in a tangle just over Singapore’s ranking based on the Gini coefficient.

In any case, back to the first point about torturing statistics. On tomorrow.sg where I got the link to Shin Leong’s post on this issue, the Anonymous Coward who recommended the post said:

“This is what our local papers will never publish. Singapore is ranked alongside African nations in terms of income disparity”

I am not sure if it is indeed true or not whether our mainstream media will ever not talk about this issue. We have to wait and see. But what is interesting is that a member of our opposition brings the attention of the blogosphere to this interesting statistic but does not really discuss the issue.

What he did do was say this:

“Shockingly, Singapore is ranked at a joint 80 out of 126 countries, alongside Kenya.”

Why is it a shock that Singapore has a high level of income disparity? Were we expecting otherwise? Why were we expecting otherwise? Is it because we weren’t meant to think otherwise? And why should we have thought otherwise? I am probably being presumptuous, but I cannot help but have the feeling that with this post, Shin Leong (as a member of the Workers’ Party) is trying to tell us that maybe all the PAP’s talk about how well Singapore and Singaporeans are doing may not be that truthful.

The thing is, while I am not disputing that things are probably not as rosy as the government would like us to believe, it doesnt help if a member of the opposition just throws this statistic up without discussing and analyzing it. What he did do, in my opinion was use this statistic the same way the government would use statistics which is to try to convince us of their own world view.

It would have been really affirming for my belief in our opposition if Shin Leong had wrote something like what Alex did in the comments section for the post or what this blogger did over here.  They weren’t super meaty but they were trying to give some flesh to the topic.

I know I’m probably nitpicking, but I can’t help but be naive in my hope that our opposition party will be different. By all means, use statistics, use them to answer difficult questions but use them without wanting them to tell you the answer you already have.

Sitting at work in my cubicle doing some coding when I started thinking about Maslow. Maslow was the guy who came up with this hierarchy of needs. According to the theory, the needs of people can be represented by a pyramid and individuals would constantly seek to satisfy successively higher needs in this hierarchy.

I thought of Maslow because I vaguely remembered that in this hierarchy of his, love/belonging is a need that is below esteem. You can refer to the wikipedia entry on the actual definitions of these needs.

I thought about these two needs because I slowly realised that while this may possibly be the hierarchy of needs that people seek for, the success of finding love and maintaining it in a relationship is actually dependent on esteem which is higher up this hierarchy.

To be more specific, I believe that generally if a person does not find satisfaction at work, his esteem with regards to confidence, competence and achievement will be affected and that will put a strain on the bonds of his or her relationship with the spouse/other half no matter how much the two people love each other. I also believe any relationship has a higher chance of survival if the two people in the relationship could live without it in the sense that they do not need the relationship to fulfill the esteem need but instead that need has been met already and the relationship is for another higher purpose.

So with respect to Maslow, while his hierarchy may indeed be the way we instinctively pursue our needs, a better strategy would be to find esteem first (the higher order one which is not dependent on other people) then find love.

If you cannot love yourself, how could you possibly know how to love another and without self-esteem, you cannot possibly know how to love yourself.

Just read about another security hole in Google’s code which allows another XSS exploit. In any case, I think it is really time to stop multitasking when on the net. Meaning when you are logged into any of your accounts from Google, Yahoo or any site for that member, your browers should only have one window open and only that site in it. Paranoia? Maybe. But be safe than sorry. The net is the Wild Wild West where any joker can shoot you in the back.

If you want to be a teacher, say this model answer at your job interview:

Interviewer:  Why do you want to be a teacher?

Interviewee:  So I can touch young children and change their lives forever.

Remember to put on your most earnest face.

I was waiting for the bus to go to work today when I finally took note of something: the advertisements on SBS buses advertising SBS Transit. I have seen them before but only today did it provoke a question in my mind - does SBS Transit really need advertisements?

The reason I ask this is because there are only two major public bus companies in Singapore - SBS and TIBS. And it is not like they are really competiting. They would be competing if a passenger made a conscious choice whether to take a TIBS bus or a SBS bus. An example of this would be if a passenger decided to take 66 (a SBS bus) over 67(a TIBS bus) to little India from the bus stop opposite King Albert Park even if 67 came first. But as we know, that would not be the case - we Singaporeans take any bus which come first if we can get on it which often is not possible during peak hours because of the ghosts haunting the back of the buses.

These two companies have few overlapping routes. I vaguely remember reading somewhere that having the two companies serve similar routes would be a waste of resources so that has been minimised. These companies have similar prices. These two companies could merge and Singaporeans won’t really notice a difference in the public transportation habits. In fact, it has even been argued before whether it is even necessary to have two companies.

Back to my first question: why the need for advertisements? To build brand awareness? In the current landscape, that wouldn’t be necessary. There is no way we can fail to notice the existence of SBS. Or is it to build brand image by trying to convince us that SBS is doing the job it is supposed to do as a public transport company. That would be useless if the experience of using SBS is otherwise (and I would prefer they use the money for such campaigns to improve the service instead of telling us the service is great) and if it isn’t  (i.e. the experience is as great as it is said in the advertisements) then the advertisements would be superfluous.

Is this such a big deal? Well yes in a way. Advertisements cost money and even though the advertisements are on SBS Buses and SBS Transit might not need to pay for putting it on their own buses (I say might not because I am unsure how they would do the accounting here), there is the cost of creating the ad campaign, putting it on the buses and the opportunity cost of that ad space if it had been sold to another advertiser.  Or if there really is excess inventory for ad space, maybe the space could be given for free to charities?

I guess what bothers me is that when I am waiting 45 minutes for a bus I don’t really want to see an advertisement telling me how great the bus company which is keeping me waiting is.  No matter how little it might cost them (i.e. the bus company) to run that ad.

(Updated: This page shows the cost of running ads on SBS buses for advertisers.  $3400 as cost to put the ad on the bus and a maximum of $5500 per month for ad space on a double decker bus does not seem a lot but still it is money which could be used somewhere else.)

I love board games. But the problem with board games is that it is hard to find people to play with. Fortunately, I have a group of friends who are quite interested in them. These friends came over to my place over the weekend and we had a really great session.

We played the game that got me hooked on these so called euro games - The Settlers of Catan.

I introduced my friends to a new game called ‘Ticket To Ride’

And I learnt a new game called ‘Carcassonne’

All these games were bought by us from this really wonderful shop called ‘Paradigm Infinitum’. There is a healthy community of gamers in Singapore and this shop is one of the focal points for that community. The staff there are also gamers and really know their stuff. They have never recommended a game that I didn’t enjoy.  The shop has a website here and you can also find out more about these kind of boardgames here.

Woke up today and saw this comment:

RH: You are right to be disappointed with the fake elections LKY holds. He and his PAP RIG ELECTIONS!

My blog, entitled “I came, I saw, I solved it” proves that LKY and PAP rig elections.

That about says it all for the system that enslaves us.

Robert HO
S0197974D

I decided to reply to the comment as a blog post. The first thing I must say is that Mr Robert Ho has misunderstood what I wrote earlier in my post about the NKF and the wisdom of crowds. I would like to clarify something.

I am disappointed at the state of the way we use elections as a mechanism to keep our government in check. I am disappointed in us - the people! While I understand and appreciate that the government has created an environment which has suited them (i.e. GRCs and the issue of HDB upgrading) it is us who has allowed the environment to thrive.

There are a lot of points to discuss here but I will talk about one - the issue of upgrading. There are those who do not like the fact that the government ties the issue of HDB upgrading to the elections by using it as an incentive to vote for them. The arguments for this is many and can easily be found so I won’t go into them. But with elections as a mechanism, the people could have rose above this and told the government, ‘NO. We won’t play by these rules. There are more important things then just getting our place upgraded and you have not addressed them!’.

Sadly, that is not the case. I feel in Singapore a good number of us are swayed by such short term incentives. And as long as we continue to vote because of what we are being offered in the short term, elections is nothing more than us going for a handout. While there are disgruntled people about the state of affairs, the fact that the PAP still receives a majority of votes show that most people think along a certain lines and are willing to have the PAP as our government despite the negative aspects. And so, my first point is that we have used elections to show the PAP what we are willing to accept and not what we want to be changed and they will continue to honour that.

Which goes to my next point. With respect to Mr Robert Ho, his blog merely suggests the PAP rigged elections and offered some ‘evidence’ that they did. He has not proved it. He has inferred certain things and while they are convincing, it is not proof.

Finally, I do not think the system we have in Singapore enslaves me. There are things I do not like, but there are many things that I do. I am not from a privileged family. I appreciate what the government has been able to do over the years, creating an environment in which I can go to school, study, learn and know so much about this world that I live in. I appreciate the stability that we enjoy here. I appreciate the fact that my female friends can go home late and we can be reasonably sure they will reach home safely. I appreciate a lot of things Singapore can offer and to me, it is because of what the government has done.

Does that mean they are perfect? No. Wanting certain things to be different and probably better is not to be mistaken with mere opposition. Let us not fall into the trap of being merely oppositions in the sense when they say left, we say right. Sometimes they might be correct and right only leads into an abyss.

I just read this book called “The Wisdom Of Crowds” and it got me thinking about stuff in Singapore.

I remember when I was in National Service, we were made to go for a talk and asked to donate to NKF via Giro.  Most of us signed up for the programme.  When the scandal about NKF occurred and the truth about what was going on at NKF was revealed, I was disappointed but not surprised.

The reason for my lack of surprise was because I have always harboured the notion that something wasn’t quite right with NKF.  Did I have any proof?  No.  Did I actually have any first hand experience.  Nope.  Then where did the notion come from?

It came from my interaction with other Singaporeans.  In taxis, I would hear taxi drivers complaining about NKF.  At coffeeshops, I would hear the elders discuss about the issue.  I cannot remember when it started, but from the noise around me, there was a signal that NKF wasn’t all it was made out to be.

Did any of the other Singaporeans knew exactly the scope, magnitude and specifics of what was wrong?  I don’t think so.

The reason why I talk about this is because I think if the knowledge of the people in Singapore with an opinion about NKF had been aggregated, we might have seen some clear flags to indicate maybe an investigation would be warranted.  Personally, I do not believe forming a committee in Singapore will help with the issue of accountability because of the way things are in Singapore.  Such a group will probably suffer from the problems of groupthink and in my opinion already start with a clear idea of the answers they want to the questions that need to be asked and answered.

I feel that what is needed in Singapore is a way to aggregate the opinions of all Singaporeans and for our government to actually listen to us and not just hear us.  The problem is sometimes I feel our government does not do that because they carry the idea that people need to be governed and only a select group of people have the ability, knowledge and experience to govern (and govern correctly) and only they know what is best because they are the experts.  There is no recourse for us except elections but because of the nature of politics in Singapore, this is a mechanism that is ineffective.  So while elections are important, it is a tool that can only be effective by the people who use them.  And sadly, I agree with the writer of the article that maybe as a nation we have not valued its importance as much as we maybe should.

Finally, one reason why I believe this issue is important can be taken from engineering.  As a system, I believe Singapore is a stable one.  It will not break so easily.  But the way Singapore’s system is setup, if one component fails, there will most probably be a cascade which will make recovery difficult.  And the ability to recover is what makes a system robust and fault tolerant no matter how large or unpredicted the perturbations to the system are.

Singapore is not setup like that.

Was bored the other day and started looking through the dollar bills I had from some hongbaos. Decided to take some photos of them.

The Two Dollars note has the word ‘education’ at the back and the 100 Dollars note has the word ‘youth’ at the back. In between, Art is worth more than Sports and Sports is more than our Garden City.

And since money talks, our Youth are worth a lot, but their Education is not.