TR EMERITUS

I refer to the 3 July 2014 Straits Times letter “S’pore has never been winner-take-all society” by Mr Cheng Shoong Tat. Mr Cheng took issue with the “winner takes all” description of Singapore society. The Oxford Reference website http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803124206571 explains a winner-takes-all market as: an occupational labour market in which there are widely differing rates of pay for those performing ostensibly the same kind of work. Those at the top of their profession will earn very high, and arguably disproportionate, salaries for the work that they perform. The emergence of winner-takes-all labour markets has been identified widely in higher skilled occupations (managers and professionals) in developed economies and is one of the factors associated with rising income inequality; inequality is increasing, that is, within as well as between occupational groups in the labour market. So a winner-takes-all society is simply a society where the successful takes more than his fair share of the spoils of society while the less successful takes less than his fair share. It is not an unfair description of Singapore society given our high GINI coefficient and our high PISA score which suggests high inequality despite high level of ability from the average person. Mr Cheng insisted that Singapore capitalism has always been far more benign than United States’ or Hong Kong’s. However, United Nations University data (http://www.wider.unu.edu/research/WIID-3a/en_GB/wiid/) shows quite the opposite instead. US capitalism has always been far more benign than Singapore’s while Hong Kong’s capitalism has been no worse than ours. Mr Cheng pointed to HDB providing a roof over most Singaporeans’ heads with sustainable mortgage payments. If HDB mortgage payments have been sustainable, how come so many Singaporeans retiring today don’t have the minimum sum in their CPF? Mr Cheng pointed to our virtually free education. But all First World nations give virtually free and most give absolutely free education. Does Mr Cheng not realize that the few ablest who went on to study at Oxbridge on the state’s account is an example of winner-takes-all? Mr Cheng pointed to no one dying in the street and no hospital operation being delayed due to cost or doubt of patient’s ability to pay. But even in Indonesia you don’t find people dying in the street so what relevance is dying in the street? No hospital operation being delayed is because people like the 95 year old Samsui woman distinguished in the 2007 National Day celebrations opted to commit suicide instead. According to Mr Cheng, if Singapore is winner takes all, • Newly married couples wouldn’t be able to sell their HDB flats after 5 years to make a profit • Winners would be able to buy their children a place in a choice secondary school • Winners would be treated in private hospitals where the best doctors and equipment are while losers get treated in public hospitals where third rate doctors and equipment are. Mr Cheng: • Where will couples stay after selling their flats? Must they emigrate from Singapore to become winners? • Being able to afford a better learning environment, better learning materials or private tuition doesn’t count towards winning? • Don’t the best doctors move on to private practice after some time? Doesn’t that lead to the best doctors being in private hospitals? Mr Cheng pointed to government transfers from the more successful to the less successful. But what is the point of making the less successful so terribly unsuccessful first then transferring some success to them? Why not just make sure they have some minimum standard of success to begin with? Mr Cheng warned of the danger of comparing with the successful rather than with some reasonable benchmark. Mr Cheng’s reasonable benchmarks are: • No one dying in the street – Indonesia • No hospital operation delayed due to cost – Malaysia • Nearly free education – Indonesia or Malaysia • Treatment in government hospitals – Indonesia or Malaysia From the Swiss standard of living in the 1990s, we have now moved on to the very reasonable Southeast Asian standard of living. Mr Cheng explained that the bell curve naturally separates the successful from the rest, so the only way to give similar rewards to both the successful and less successful is to level down the former, but this will not help the latter. But bell curves can be very broad or very narrow. How does Mr Cheng know that the Singapore bell curve is by nature very broad and not narrow like those of Europe? So instead of leveling down the successful, giving similar rewards to both successful and less successful can be achieved by narrowing the bell curve. Mr Cheng said never mind the GINI as long as people live healthy, productive and dignified lives according to some reasonable benchmark. Going by Mr Cheng’s reasonable benchmark, Singaporeans should be content with Malaysian or Indonesian standard of living. But is it not unfair that Singaporeans pay Singapore cost of living but only enjoy Malaysian or Indonesian standard of living? Mr Cheng reminded us that a fair and just society should never prevent one from living better than one’s neighbour. In the same token, a fair and just society should never allow one to live far better than one deserves or another to live far worse than he deserves. Rebut healthy dose of realism I refer too to the 12 Mar 2014 Straits Times letter “Healthy dose of realism” by Dr Yik Keng Yeong. While aiming for a lower Gini, Dr Yik wanted us to note that supposedly egalitarian communist and socialist countries have dismantled their unworkable political systems. Dr Yik was mistaken; communist countries like China and Vietnam have dismantled their economic systems, not their political systems. Dr Yik forgot that “in capitalism, man exploits man while in communism the opposite is true”. The bastion of egalitarianism is not communism but European social democracy. Dr Yik shared how amongst his cohort from the same school, some ended up driving Ferraris, some ended up taking the bus. To Dr Tik, that is an example of the normal distribution of a bell curve at work with everyone getting no more and no less than what they deserved according to their sweat and tears. If Dr Yik had come from an elite school, it is unlikely that his cohort differed greatly in drive or ability. Does it not occur to Dr Yik that the bell curve of his school cohort was probably not the standard normal distribution but a compressed one like the shape of a tall bell? How can such a tall, narrow bell curve of students end up producing such a broad bell curve of career outcomes later in life? Simply put, Singapore is a winner takes all society. Thank you   Ng Kok Lim Straits Times, S'pore has never been winner-take-all society, 3 July 2014 SINCE when has Singapore ever been a winner-take-all society ("Engage now for a more equitable society" by Dr Edmund Lam; last Saturday)? Even well before the recent shift to "left of centre", Singapore's brand of capitalism was far more benign than the United States' or even Hong Kong's version. The HDB provided roofs over most Singaporeans' heads, with mortgage payments pegged at sustainable portions of their monthly incomes. Schools provided virtually free education. No pupil was denied the education he deserved because of financial difficulties, and the ablest from the humblest backgrounds got to study at Oxbridge on the state's account. No one was left dying in the street because he had no insurance, and no government hospital delayed an urgent costly operation because of doubts over the patient's ability to pay. Have winners now taken all in Singapore? If that had happened, newly married couples would not be buying HDB flats (and making a profit five years later), but renting from winners-turned-landlords for years on end. Winners' children, instead of having to ace the Primary School Leaving Examination, would just be a donation cheque away from the secondary schools of their choice. And winners would be treated in private hospitals that would have cornered the best doctors and equipment, condemning the rest to inferior public hospitals with third-rate doctors and outdated equipment. The Government, while allowing meritocracy to create wealth, has not hesitated to transfer wealth from the successful to the less successful. Such transfers have been growing in recent years. It is dangerous to focus on what the successful can have that the less successful cannot have, instead of what the less successful can have compared to any reasonable benchmark. The bell curve naturally separates the successful from the rest, so the only way to give similar rewards to both the successful and less successful is to level down the former, but this will not help the latter. For us to stay together as a community, wealth transfer from the successful to the less successful is essential. But instead of targeting some pre-determined income gap or Gini coefficient, such transfers must aim at ensuring that the least successful among us live healthy, productive and dignified lives based on a reasonable benchmark, with opportunities for advancement open to them if they apply themselves to the fullest. A fair and just society is not one in which no one can live better than his neighbour. Such social resentment, which some commentators appear to be encouraging, will bring Singapore to its knees. Cheng Shoong Tat Straits Times, Healthy dose of realism, 12 Mar 2014 MS LORRAINE Boon Ling Li's assertions deserve a riposte ("Why cost-of-living survey matters"; last Saturday). It is not true that prices of items such as "Burberry-type raincoats, four best seats in a theatre and three-course dinners in high-end restaurants" will be used as benchmarks for restaurateurs and retailers - not when the market caters to so many diverse segments, with each one subjected to its own unique competitive pricing pressures. There is really no contradiction when Singaporeans are exhorted to run the best race they can and yet be prepared to face a future that is not a bed of roses. Not when reality surrounds us with so many competitors, each no less innately gifted or driven to succeed than us. Also, even without the inordinately expensive and unnecessary luxuries of life that markedly increase the cost of living (for expatriates), the standard of living and quality of life for Singaporeans do not suffer much, if at all. While greater equality makes societies stronger and we should be aiming for a lower Gini coefficient, it should be noted that communist and socialist countries, which once proudly proclaimed egalitarianism, have quietly dismantled their unworkable political systems. In the meantime, capitalism, with all its egregious opportunism and social inequalities, reigns supreme. It is natural to work hard and expect our just rewards, but it is presumptuous to think that the stars are ours to grab as a right just because we are encouraged to reach for the stars. At a class reunion I just attended, some old schoolmates drove up in swanky Ferraris while others took the bus. Even as some of us were captains of industry, chief executives of listed companies or medical specialists earning millions of dollars, others were normal-level employees or middling general practitioners. Like any cohort of bright-eyed students starting out by aiming for the stars, in the race of life we had all strung out in the normal distribution of a bell curve and landed where we deserved to be, getting no more and no less than what we had put in in sweat and tears. Yet, unlike the social scientists Ms Boon quoted, none of us saw social position as more important than personal identity. We were oblivious to status and all were accepted and feted as equals, a minister in attendance being no exception. Education and experience with the vicissitudes of life had disabused us of any preconceived prejudice. Yik Keng Yeong (Dr)  Read More →

(1 Jul) - A politician in the eastern Indian state of West Bengal is facing calls to resign after he was caught on video threatening the rape of female relatives of rivals. According to The Guardian, Tapas Pal, an MP from India’s fourth-largest party in parliament, was captured on a smartphone in May saying the following at a rally about opponents accused of political violence: "If CPIM [Communist Party of India-Marxist] tries to kill and intimidate our workers… I will not spare them. I will let loose my men to rape your women." Those remarks incited nationwide criticism on Tuesday. The actor-turned-politician has gone on to apologize, calling his actions “insensitive” and a “gross error of judgement,” but his words touched a sore spot in a country notorious for sexual violence towards women and politicians making thoughtless references about the issue. India set up stricter laws against sex offenders after the fatal gang rape of a medical student in New Dehli in December 2012. In April, three men were sentenced to hang after being convicted of raping a photojournalist. [Report first appeared in  The Slatest]  Read More →

Mr Gullible: July 12, 2014 at 8:48 pm (Quote) The woosy Dutchman worked for the UN. Spore is not his one & only client. He has advised countless developing & underdeveloped countries. Majority have huge mineral resources to save import raw material costs too. Such advisory services are provided to 3rd world countries all over the world upon request by the UN. Is it implied that Spore is his success story? Really? Hundreds of UN’s economic advisers have been sent to Africa, Latin America, Asia, etc., since time immemorial. None has succeeded. Why? Without astute political leadership to rally & lead the people nothing happens. Wat if it was resource rich E Timor then? Next, the execution & implementation of tough policies is no easy task without the will & political clout. Government corruption in most fledgling new countries kills it before any project can even be launched. Next, advice must also be modified by the government to suit circumstances. The govt is accountable to the people at large not any UN adviser. Right ? So simple then, this Winmus guy must have more than 1 success story in his portfolio. Reminds me of my own AIA insurance adviser/consultant. At the end of the day I do my homework and don't even disclose what schemes I possess elsewhere. Life’s truth!   @ Mr Gullible, What is the greatest all embracing PAP sales pitch? That is they know best through their years of political dominance. In fact, by design through laws and social construction PAP has made itself a monopoly. 1. PAP is not an eternal living thing. Its veracity and competence rests on the people it can attract. And by most accounts since PM LHL took over, the people they can get are the third tiers, and increasingly dominated by people from the armed forces. And it is easy to see why our Generals get into politics, their skill sets are too limited to be useful in the corporate world. Even when they do, it is to GLCs. 2. I do not disagree that leaders do matter. But leaders are also circumscribed by circumstances. If Singapore is not in such a geographical position would Singapore be what it is today? Lee Kuan Yew had attested time and again the advantages of our deep sea port that was revived by Sir Raffles. 3. Now, you may say that the inchoate PAP leaders adapted Dr. Albert Winsemius’s strategy to fit into Singapore’s political reality to make it work. But first of course there must be a strategy, which was not conceived by PAP but by Dr Winsemius. They did make good use of it. I don't deny that. But being good administrators cannot take away the due credit to the creator. But here is the problem. From then till now, according to Paul Krugman in his article ‘The myth of Asia’s miracle’, Singapore had not adapted to the changing economic reality at all. His criticism is that in fact, Singapore has never reached the innovation needed to be first class economy contrary to being classified as a developed country. We are developed as a matter of running up GDP, but not as a people with the necessary endogenous development to be productive as a first class economy. That is why our Gini is high. Because we are boosting our GDP through capital and labor without productivity. So, with regards to leadership the salient points are that: a. Early PAP leaders were good, but they didn't do it all by themselves. Singapore’s geography, the acceptance of nation states as viable sovereign communities (versus Empires), the growth of globalization, and of course Dr Winsemius’s blueprint, helped Singapore. b. PAP’s past good administration is no longer predicative of future performance. And this is especially so when monopoly and the lacked of a competitive political culture made PAP ‘lazy’. They have little reflexes and experience to coalesce a society that has evolved to be more participatory. c. And the disconnect between a developed country but second class wages testifies to the fact that Paul Krugman is right. Which then brings us back to Dr Winsemius’s first contribution. Because it is now obvious that since Dr Winsemius, where is PAP’s economic strategy? Editor ST Han had showed that from independence till 2000, our median wage doubled every decade, from 2000 to 2010 it averages 1.3% annually. Life’s truth does not flatter PAP at all.   BK * Comments appeared in: S’pore’s unlikely economic success lies in its history    Read More →