Ian On The Red Dot

Actually, it is a novel about China, but somehow, to a certain degree it seems like the author was speaking about Singapore.

Given the choice between a good hell and a counterfeit paradise, what will people choose? Whatever you say, many people will believe that a counterfeit paradise has got to be better than a good hell. Though at first they recognise that the paradise is bogus, they either don’t dare or wish to expose it as such. As time passes, they forget that it’s not real and actually begin to defend it, insisting that it’s the only paradise in existence.

Democratic one-Party dictatorship, rule of law with social stability as its top priority, an authoritarian government for the people, a state-controlled market economy, fair competition dominated by the central government-owned enterprises, scientific development with Chinese characteristics, self-centered harmonious diplomacy, a multi-racial republic with sovereignty of one people, post-Occidental and ‘post-universal’ thought of the subject, and national rejuvenation of the incomparable Chinese civilization.

SGEntrepreneurs seemed to be schizophrenic yesterday. A couple of months ago, our founder Bernard Leong wrote an article against the ‘pay to pitch’ business model in the funding ecosystem. Personally, most, if not all of us at SGEntrepreneurs agree with his position against this model of obtaining funding. And yet, an event organized by the very entity that operates on a business model we loathe was publicized on SGEntrepreneurs.com.

Why?

SGEntrepreneurs is a site that posts information about events. The tension in the decision to post about such events is analogous to that of a grocery store owner who might sell cigarettes and alcohol even if he was a teetotalling individual, one key difference being that SGEntrepreneurs does not make money from the posting of such events. So to what extent do you protect the people who may visit your store, or in this case blog. To what extent should the team at SGEntrepreneurs be gatekeepers? Do we always indulge in self-censorship. Do we present noteworthy information even if we disagree with the premise of that information.

And yes, we do believe that the Angels Den Speedfunding event is noteworthy.

What was probably lacking in the initial announcement of the event was a ‘Caveat emptor‘ warning.

I say ‘probably’ because SGEntrepreneurs has rarely, probably even have not, editorialize event listings. In a perfect world, the ‘Related Posts’ plugin would have shown Bernard’s earlier post. In a perfect world, people learning about the event would have done their research, learned lots more information about the event and ‘paying to pitch’ and be equipped to make an informed decision about participating.

We don’t live in a perfect world. Which begs the question, how to balance gate-keeping with breadth of coverage. This is a process we at SGEntrepreneurs are continually working on and this incident is a good reminder on the need to establish clear policies.

Lastly, it is naive to think that no one pays when a start-up pitches to investors.

Someone is always left with the bill.

Those free pitching sessions aren’t free. Well, at least free for the start-ups. Most of the time, the potential investors don’t bear any of the cost. The ones who bear the cost are the sponsors and the government bodies.

Let’s look at government bodies bearing the cost. It is in fact tax payer’s money furthering the dreams of a few. It is tax payer’s money that is paying for access to these investors. Access not only the start-ups benefit from, but access that the bureaucrats can benefit from for their own future private endeavors after leaving government service.

Someone always pay.

I don’t think it should be the start-ups. I don’t think it should be government bodies.

Left as an exercise to the reader to figure out who I think should be paying.

Lucian:

My children are your children, my parents your parents. I would lay down my life to save yours because I knew without a doubt you’d do the same for mine.

This epiphany totally redefined what being a country meant to me.

While growing up, listening to stories about Dr Goh from my teachers and reading up about him, the seed of belief that service to Singapore is a duty, not a career was laid.

He was a revered figured.

There is much to learn from the way Dr Goh lived his life and served the nation.

Rest in peace Dr Goh. Thanks for everything we as Singaporeans get to enjoy because of your efforts.

The Old Guard

1. Dr Goh Keng Swee
2. S. Rajaratnam
3. Lim Kim San
4. Hon Sui Sen
5. Toh Chin Chye

The Malayan Forum.

More to be added.

Notes:

Time to refresh knowledge about the old guard. Time to remember again.

Which is more gracious?

I’m not very sure how I got presented with this scenario (did I read about it on a blog, or someone shared this with me over coffee), but it started with a foreigner who was relating to someone about her observation on the way Singaporeans queue to use the toilet cubicles.

She found it strange that there was a single queue for all the cubicles instead of multiple queues, one for each cubicle.

Today as I was queuing to obtain money from the ATM, I remembered the discussion regarding these two ways of organizing queuing. More specifically, we were using the multiple queuing method and after seeing how we (the people queuing to use the ATM) handled the breaking down of 1 of the ATMs, I am reminded on the discussion about graciousness and its relation to the way people queue.

The two scenarios are presented below. My questions are these:

1. Which is a more gracious way of queuing? and why do you think this (the method of queuing) is so?

2. Which method of queuing is evident of a more gracious society? and why do you think this is so?

3. Which method of queuing might help move a society to be more gracious?

Please leave your comments. Thanks.

I’ve been thinking about this a lot and recently, the more I look around my room, the more I start seeing George Carlin’s point. My house is just a place to store things. Things I’ve accumulated, grown attached to, and really have no use for beyond being manifests of my ‘memories’.

Most days I just come home and use only 2 things – my laptop and my bed.

That’s it.

The attachment to property is a bane to the ordinary citizen, it subjects you to the mercies of those who have power.

It allows the government to use HDB as a means to control the populace.

One of the fears my gf and I share is that we may never be able to comfortably afford a place to make our home. A place to be alone together. A place that we can do up nicely and call our own.

Like I kind of said in an earlier post, I’m not willing to subject myself to the avariciousness and capriciousness of a self-serving government entity like the HDB just so that I can start a family with my gf.

A HDB flat is not a necessity to start a family and have a home. It has been ingrained in our collective social psyche that it is. But it is not. We will never have real freedom unless we see it otherwise.

Home for me is where you are.

George Carlin on ‘A Place For My Stuff’

Many years ago, in history class, I learned of a possible etymology of the word ‘Singapore – ’singhha’ meaning stopover and ‘pura’ meaning city – which is quite befitting for the name of a country that relies so heavily on its port.

Recently, I’ve been coming across a series of articles that made me think about what the idea behind Singapore is:

Seah Chiang Nee’s ‘A people under restructure‘:

WHILE Singapore is busy attracting talents from abroad, some 4,500 of its own better-educated citizens may be heading for New Zealand.

This is the other side of the immigration coin that is costing Singapore more dearly in skill losses than larger nations that are losing talents to it.

An older article by Seah Chiang Nee, ‘Will Singaporeans fight‘:

With the country facing economic hardship and terrorist bombing threats, how many will go soft and leave it for “greener” and “less dangerous” places?

The question was raised by Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong in his National Day speech . When the chips were down, Goh asked, would they stay to fight for the nation or take flight at the first sign of trouble. “Are you a quitter or a stayer?”

It is interesting that an article about human resource problems in IT companies provides a great perspective on how to view those who decide to give up Singapore citizenship:

The benefits don’t stop there. A company with a culture of quitting does not have ex-employees; they have alumni. This is far more than a semantic distinction. An alumni relationship is positive; something that people can take pride in; and one that keeps the door open for further opportunities on both ends. Let’s face it; we’re already curious about our former workplaces and try to keep up through former coworkers. It’d be that much easier if the company facilitated this in some manner.

The alumni relationship also helps with the flow of new personnel. While ex-employees are be hesitant to recommend the company they “broke up” with, alumni will champion it to colleagues in need of similar experience. Furthermore, there’s no sense of defeat when an alumni returns – armed with experiences from other organizations – for another tenure.

This post by Lucian has been weighing on my mind:

Singapore needs to be a well-articulated idea.

Maybe your name really decides your destiny.

Maybe Singapore is destined to be the stopover city.

Last night when I was at Clarke Quay waiting by the fountain for some friends, a young Thai couple asked me to take a photo for them. The joy on their faces just being able to share a moment in my country lent a little to the answer I’m going to attempt for Lucian’s question – What is the idea behind Singapore?

Singapore was, is, and will always be a stopover city. A place where people seeking a better life can come and create that better life. A place where most will lay down their roots, a place where many will pass through, seeking their better life elsewhere. For those who leave, it is never ‘goodbye’ but ’see you later’. Through those who wander off, the seeds of the Singaporean idea, that there can be a place where one can have that desired life regardless of race, language or religion, is carried – there is separation but never abandonment. For those born here, this chance to freely create the better life by merit is our birthright, one fought for with sweat, tears and blood by those who came before. It is this birthright that we defend with our National Service. It is this birthright that we share freely, to those who gather here, with no motive for anything in return. As we have been blessed, so through us, blessings may pass.

Additional thought:

1. It seems more Singaporeans are emigrating. But how many of these are born and raised in Singapore. Or is this higher number a consequence of more people immigrating to Singapore and then using Singapore as a stepping stone to other better places.

2. In my mind, there is no question that Singapore should be a place that welcomes foreigners – from the highly paid talents that strut around Shenton Way to the construction workers who make a lot of what we take for granted. This question however gets confused with the other one – how to accommodate them. We, as citizens, can and should take issue with our government for their plans to accommodate the foreigners but we should be mindful never to get caught up in xenophobia.

A Place In Our Hearts

I’ll repeat it: Singapore needs to be a clearly articulated idea. I do not doubt that debate is healthy for the country, but when it descends to a never-ending stream of negativity, surely we need to search within ourselves if we have the means to change things.

The idea that is Singapore is shaped not only by the work of her government, but by the actions of her people. We need to make this place something we, and our children, can subscribe to.

My first job after graduation was at a MNC based in India with an office in Singapore. The Indian programmers I worked with were incredibly intelligent people. They were also very cheap compared to their abilities and the value they were contributing to the company (*).

(*) This isn’t a subjective statement. There is a methodology to determine the costs of projects, both for the company and the clients.

Because they were cheap, whenever there were projects, the solution was to throw X number of programmers to build the cathedral. From scratch. Again. The only way a project benefited from previous projects was through the experience and knowledge of the programmers who had worked on other projects.

There was rarely, actually never, a common pool of source code (i.e. libraries) that was created by one project, subsequently refined, and used in future projects. There wasn’t even a process to ensure that this was done.

If source code was ever shared between projects, it was because a programmer on the current project had done something similar in a previous project, and copied the code over. Ctrl C, Ctrl V.

Now, from a company’s perspective, if the programmers weren’t paid cheaply, the company wouldn’t want the programmers to keep rewriting similar code. The companies would institute a policy to ensure that after each project, a review was done to see what code could be reused for future projects, extract that code, refine it, and create libraries that can be shared. These libraries of code would subsequently be refined as they were used by other projects.

Like my boss would say – more bang for the buck.

Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.

When an employee first joins a company, I would like to believe he or she would make the best effort to do his or her best. I’ve seen that in my current company. People really give their all with the best attitude.

Then they wait and see. What will management do. What sort of bonuses are given. What sort of pay increment is given. What sort of promotions are awarded. Are promises kept?

After the first year, people start asking the questions:
1. Does the company value me?
2. Do I really want to stay in this company?
3. Where can I get a pay that is equal to my value?

If promises are not kept, expectations not met, then these questions start getting asked by more people in increasing intensity. Sometimes people give the company a grace period. One year is too short a time to judge. Maybe this year was an aberration due to the economic crisis. Let’s wait one more year.

Once they get fooled or disappointed for the second year, you can bet a lot of people will start planning to jump ship. So here is the impact of constantly leading your employees on that you will take care of them.

1. Lots of time is wasted on them planning to jump ship instead of working for the company.
2. Negative energy is generated. People become less productive.
3. People also become less creative. Meaning – they aren’t going to be generating long term intellectual capital for the company if they know they are going to jump ship soon. They just do their job and go home. Nothing more. Nothing less.
4. New recruits look at the old birds leaving and go, fine, it seems the company doesn’t take care of its own. Maybe they weren’t good enough. I am. I’ll give the company a grace period. But on the safe side, I won’t invest 110% into this company. Just do my work. Do it well. And try to stand out with my excellent work. But I won’t build intellectual capital. I won’t give the company something they can use when I’m not around.

The truth is this. Treat people like monkeys. Or give them the impression they are going to be treated like monkeys, and you’re never get your company to grow well sustainably. There is only that much you can scale by adding disposable manpower.

Giving employees reason(s) to build that intellectual capital for you and the confidence that you will share the profits of a well-performing company are the best ways to increase your company’s staff’s productivity.

Some other notes
1. Talk about cognitive dissonance. There was a friend whose boss announced to the staff during a company meeting that there was no pay increment because business was bad. At the end of the meeting, he invited all the staff for a party on his new yacht.

2. I hate it when companies try to extract maximum value from employees NOW promising to reward them in the future.

The AWS (i.e. Annual Wage Supplement) was a way to add a variable component to the employee’s wage. It is actually quite brilliant. The company reduces monthly fixed cost. The company gets the benefits NOW. without really being forced to pay LATER. They only promise to pay later. The bad companies find a thousand reasons not to give AWS. Wait. My opinion is most non-government related and non-MNCs do find at least 1 reason not to give AWS (or if they do give, a miserable amount).

Saw this tweet:

Unemployment is always caused by global factors, but employment gains are always due to the Resilience Package. Huat ah!

My government’s view on their contribution (and sometimes lack of) to Singapore mirrors that of my father (admittedly this is unfair to him):

When I did well in school:

Father (to friends): My son did well in school. Scored all distinctions.

When I did something wrong:

Father (to mother): Your son is late again. He doesn’t know how to be punctual.