TR EMERITUS

Ripped by Singaporedaddy from: inspir3d As DBS staff bid their final farewell to chief executive Richard Stanley, who died of leukemia last Saturday, the shares of Singapore’s biggest bank continued to rally. DBS stock price continued its rise, even as Mr. Stanley’s cortege passed through Shenton Way this afternoon. This is despite the fact that in the last four months, it has been Mr. Koh Boon Hwee, Chairman of DBS and a non-banker, who has been steering the DBS ship amidst Stanley’s absence and Singapore’s steepest recession. DBS’ stock rise comes amidst a broader market rally. It is thus not clear if the stock rise indicates that investors are placing confidence in the bank’s chairman, or if it is a simply a stock movement in tandem with the broader market. The DBS board, nevertheless, feels that Mr Koh is worth his weight in gold. In comparison to Mr. Stanley who was paid almost $5 million for eight months of work in 2008, Mr. Koh has received $2 million in ’special remuneration’ from DBS for assuming an ‘active management oversight’ role from Jan 1 to April 30 last year. Mr. Koh has since donated this $2 million to charitable causes, but looks set to continue to receive this ‘special remuneration’ while the board searches for a successor. Meanwhile, there is no pressure coming from political circles to expedite the process of leadership replacement. Tharman Shanmugaratnam has been quoted in the press as saying that DBS should not rush to find a new CEO. That is probably because the DBS board is itself staffed with ‘supermen,’ according to one DBS shareholder. That shareholder was referring to DBS director Christopher Cheng who sits on the boards of 152 companies. Analysts have said that DBS may take a while to find a new CEO who can lead the bank through what has become the sharpest global economic downturn in decades. Indeed, the global downturn has hit export-oriented economies like Singapore particularly hard. Those who thought that the dismal 2008 fourth quarter GDP results were a flash in the pan were clearly in for a shock. On a seasonally annualized basis, real 2009 Q1 GDP contracted by 19.7% compared to the previous quarter, even worse than the 16.4% contraction in the fourth quarter of 2008. Compared to the Q1 2008, MTI expects Q1 2009 real GDP to contract by 11.5%, more than twice the 4.2% contraction registered in the last quarter. MTI’s earlier forecasts had factored in the possibility of a weak quarter, now it is clear that those forecasts were woefully over optimistic. Hardest hit is the manufacturing industry, estimated to have contracted a whopping -29% in the first quarter. The manufacturing decline was led by the electronics and precision engineering segments, but chemicals and biomedical manufacturing also saw large declines. Trade growth projections in 2009 have been revised downwards from between -19% and -17% to a staggering drop of between -25% and -22%. This comes in tandem with the weak global economic outlook, as forecast by organizations such as the World Bank, the IMF and the OECD. Hence, it is thus not a surprise that the MTI has reduced its economic growth forecast for 2009 to -6.0% to -9.0%. This has been brought to you by the brotherhood press 2009  Read More →

By Jeremy Koh, Guest Columnist I refer to the letter written by Tan Shao Ken entitled "IR jobs: Are Singaporeans being given priority?" (read letter here) Mr Tan wrote that Singaporeans must have priority and right of refusal and the Government and the IRs must work to ensure that Singaporeans who are qualified and want a job with the IRs get one. Mr Tan was referring to the recent uproar in cyberspace over IR jobs going to foreigners. He had the impression that the IRs will create many jobs for Singaporeans. I am afraid that Mr Tan, like many others before him, has been misled by the mainstream media which had overhyped the recent recruitment drives of the two IRs. To put it bluntly, the IRs are never meant to create jobs for Singaporeans in the first place. The Singapore government needs the IRs to provide an additional source of revenue for their coffers through taxation and the two consortiums who won the right to build the IRs just want to maximize their profits. If we take these business considerations into context, there is no reason for either the government or the IRs to give priorities to Singaporeans in job applications. Besides Filipinos, the IRs are also actively recruiting staff from Taiwan and Malaysia according to insider sources. Filipinos are highly prized for their command of the English language while Taiwanese and Malaysian Chinese are willing to work for long hours with few complaints (I quote a HR manager here) It is much cheaper to hire a foreigner than a Singaporean in the long run because the employer does not need to fork out another 13% of their basic salaries to pay for CPF contributions. By the time the IRs are opened end of the year for SANDS and next year for Resort Worlds, the global economy is probably still in the doldrums and it is widely expected they will make a loss in the first few years. It is therefore predictable that the IRs will want to reduce their overheads by cutting down on manpower costs. I am not surprised if more than half the IR workforce is made up of foreigners eventually. Can our government force the IRs to recruit Singaporeans? Frankly speaking, I do not think they have the right to do so unless it was stipulated in the contract originally that the IRs need to allocate a certain number of jobs to Singaporeans. I would advise Mr Tan to stop whining and think of ways instead to upgrade his qualifications and skills so as to improve his chances of being employed. For goodness sake, the Singapore government does not owe us a living. Since when did it start to favor locals over foreigners? Between decreasing the profitability of the IRs by forcing them to recruit locals and welcoming more potential PRs and citizens to our shores, the choice is obvious. If Mr Tan still feel hard done by the government's pro-foreigner policy, I suggest he casts a protest vote against them in the next general election. The bitter truth is: Singaporeans only have themselves to blame for the current predicament they are in by forsaking their basic political rights for crumbs thrown at them by the ruling party. It is the pregorative of the IR to decide on who to employ. Let us not forget that Singapore is where it is today because we practise meritocracy regardless of nationality. Being Singaporean does not confer one any additional advantage. In fact, some are better off being born in China or India.  Read More →

Written by Missy Dotty & Darkness of the brotherhood / As some of you may already know the new CEO of AWARE happens to be a banker. She is the vice-president of consumer banking group cards and unsecured loans for DBS Bank.   What really surprised me was shortly after she announced her new position, Ms Lau qualified herself by sharing she did not have the green light to be Aware president from her employers.   What’s DBS beef with Ms Lau joining AWARE? – it seems, its work related ‘We believe that as a vice-president in DBS, she already has a challenging job with many responsibilities, and the role of president would demand too much of her time and energy,’ a spokesman said last night – I don’t know what to make of this. Really, I don’t. But one thing is for sure I don’t buy it. I just think DBS wants to avoid negative publicity and distance themselves from anything remotely controversial.   Having said that lets give them all the benefit of the doubt; and lets all play charades and assume, its really a work related concern – even so: does an employer have a right to get involved with what an employee decides to do during his or her free time?   I understand; times are hard these days. And firms have to remain focused and get the best possible mileage out of every dollar spent. Only why draw the simplistic straight line assumption volunteer work will get in the way of an employee performance?   Shouldn’t firms during these challenging times be encouraging their employees to give time to nonprofit organizations when money is short? Don’t they have a moral duty to encourage philanthropy and even make it convenient for employees to volunteer their time and expertise?   Why does it have to be an all of nothing calculation? Why can’t firms strike a happy balance between individual performance and still provision enough space for their employees by helping them to find ever more innovative and creative ways to add value to our community?   Some say with the bad economic times; firms both large and small have been making cutbacks due to poor earnings and what they used to give to charities and worthy causes has even gone down dramatically – but shouldn’t this lamentable state of affairs spur them instead to find ever more creative and innovative ways of not putting an end to the charitable work that nonprofit organizations have come to expect from them?   The point I am trying to bring across is as the economic outlook grows more dire each day, firms should be increasingly encouraging their employees to donate their skills for free, rather than narrowing the field of possibilities by discouraging them to do so. Or just resorting to no imagination dollar donations, as it remains the best way to get around the lesser profit still need money for charity paradox.   As it’s precisely because firms are unable to provide grants and bursaries at the same levels of the past. They should be looking for creative ways to continue to help communities and how might this whole idea of shooting down Ms Lau’s new appointment by her employers even add value to the whole idea of volunteerism – it cannot.   What really beggars the imagination is how DBS can so causally discount the obvious benefits to the broader community of women at large; when a highly experienced manager such as Ms Lau decides to helm an organization like AWARE – along with throwing out the merit of skills-based volunteerism that nonprofit organization usually can never afford. As consulting at private sector rates remains impossibly expensive (I should know, I happen to be a lawyer). Along with probably the idea it’s one way for firms to continue playing a meaningful role in giving back to the community while saving some money that would otherwise go to donations.   I hope DBS takes this opportunity to reflect deeply on their short sighted decision to disapprove of what Ms Lau has decided to do by taking up the new challenge in AWARE.   I hope the management of DBS have the imagination to take a broader sweep of the bigger picture and understand how they may even have inadvertently disabled many who may have felt the urge to volunteer their skills and time; but now feel that’s its a disincentive that may even militate against their career prospects.   And I hope DBS reflects on how many who are out there who desperately need help in these dire times; are now increasingly disabled further because of this scardi cat directive – and what was it all for? To side skirt undesirable publicity? To deflect controversy? To make more money?   Well that says a lot about your values. Alot!   Dotty    Read More →