Brain drain or Great Opportunity to justify foreign talent

PM warns of talent loss, leaving no 'central core' to lead S'pore

The PM identified the loss of talent as one of three major challenges facing small, open societies such as Singapore in this era of global talent and information flows.

'To do well, a country needs a core of its ablest citizens, those with both the intellectual and social acumen to play leadership roles in the economy, the administration and the political leadership.

'Without that central core to take the country forward, the society cannot perform to its full potential, and the citizens will suffer,' he said.

But, Mr Lee said, Singapore must accept such talent flows as a reality, draw in foreign talent and encourage its citizens who study and work abroad to return home.

Interesting response to the brain drain problem by PM Lee. The common tactic he uses is to portray his own government as being truly concerned about the people's welfare thus justifying any action that the government takes as having kind intentions. Here, he implies that the people will ultimately be the ones who suffer as a result of brain drain. While this is true, the emphasis shouldn't be on who will suffer since it is a given that us Singaporeans would obviously be the ones who suffer. Rather, the emphasis should be on what kind of a policy to adopt in order to ensure that the harmful effects of a brain drain are mitigated.

PM Lee also says that "Singapore must accept such talent flows as a reality". Is he suggesting that this problem is beyond our control? Is he attempting to absolve himself from all blame for this problem of a brain drain? How can we possibly accept something as a reality? Should we not first try to tackle the root of the problem? By asserting that it is a reality, PM Lee attempts to blind us all to the root causes of this problem, which if I may say, lie within the Singapore government's own policies of treating Singaporeans like second class citizens, a repressive government and a lack of democracy.

He thus suggests a two prong approach to dealing with this problem. Firstly, that we should draw in foreign talent (as if we haven't been drawing in enough already, and as if drawing in foreign talent doesn't just serve to exacerbate the brain drain problem) and secondly, that we should encourage our citizens who study and work abroad to come back home.

The first suggestion of drawing in foreign talent is well, unsustainable as compared to a policy of keeping Singaporeans at home. Simply put, such a policy depends a lot on the economic growth of Singapore. Should Singapore suddenly enter a recession, we would suddenly see the influx of foreign talent dwindle drastically, and if we were to be so reliant on foreign talent, the consequences would be disastrous.

The second suggestion of encouraging our citizens who study and work abroad to come back home is well, too little too late. It's too little because you need to take real measures, such as granting Singaporeans more freedom, ensuring a higher standard of democracy and re-instilling faith in the Singapore government's, in order to truly encourage our citizens to come back. Yet more importantly, it's too late. What's the point of encouraging citizens who have already settled abroad to come back? It makes much more sense to keep citizens who are already in Singapore within our shores.

But what I find most disturbing is that the order of PM Lee's suggestions essentially implied that it was more important to accept more foreign talent than to get Singaporeans to come back. It is baffling that the Singapore government thinks more highly of foreign talent than their very own people who are born and bred within an education system they are themselves responsible for. It is even more baffling that the Singapore government seems to think of our country as a Multi-National Corporation, one where the people are measured by labour hours and the country's economic success is just a GDP. Does it not bother the Singapore government that we are actually a nation with our very own culture after all.

Continue reading >>

Miscarriage of justice; possible in Singapore?

A man was jailed nine years and given six strokes of the cane in 1992 for the charge of trafficking cannabis. 15 years later, Justice V K Rajah has overturned his conviction is giving him a retrial. The basis for this is a lack of evidence provided by the prosecution, despite an apparent plea of guilty by the convict during the trial. It seems that the basis for the conviction then in 1992 was the plea of guilt, one which the TODAY article contests as being a result of certain factors. It is disturbing that the burden of proof in our criminal justice system has actually descended to a mere plea of guilt, something that could very possibly be simply the result of an inadequate representation being provided for the accused.

Continue reading >>

Why boycotting the Beijing Olympics upholds sporting purity

It has often been mentioned that the Beijing Olympics should be kept free from politics because it is a sporting event and thus a boycott is unjustified. Yet, is the Beijing Olympics really a sporting event, or is it, as was the 1936 Berlin Olympics, an event that the Chinese government is using to legitimise its reign and divert attention away from the repression of its people?

With all the spectacular stadiums being built, and massive propaganda about the Beijing Olympics, China is clearly using this event to emphasize its growing economic and political influence on the international arena. I thus question whether we can still consider the Beijing Olympics a sporting event that is free from politics to begin with.

Since this Beijing Olympics is not an apolitical event to begin with, doesn't that mean that using it for political purposes, such as pressuring the Chinese government to clean up their act perfectly fine? And doesn't it also mean that if we really want sporting purity, we should boycott the Beijing Olympics as a sign of our displeasure with China using it to glorify their regime. Yet this whole regime glorification notion is ultimately something that will feature in almost every Olympics.

More importantly, sports in itself is political, regardless of whether the host nation tries to use it to glorify their own regime. Simple put, all international sporting events involve nations who compete on an inter-national level, where countries are pitted against countries. And what is politics? Is it not about how a country is run? Thus it is inevitable that when we come to this highest level of society, that of the country, politics will be bound to feature. If we really want to keep sports pure, the solution is not to boycott, nor is it to not boycott, but the solution is to do away with such events in the first place, because such events are by their very nature political. What this also means, is that there is a very real tendency for political issues to come into the picture.

Just like Singapore politics, such an outcome is both predictable and inevitable.

Continue reading >>

The Lee's Strike Again

May hearing on Feer libel suit
A TWO-DAY hearing will be held next month to decide if the defamation suits taken by the Prime Minister and Minister Mentor against the Far Eastern Economic Review (Feer) magazine will go to trial.

Lawyers for PM Lee Hsien Loong and MM Lee Kuan Yew had applied for a summary judgment last August, arguing for the High Court to rule on the case without it going to trial.

The court can do so if it is satisfied that the arguments presented by Feer are baseless.

But Feer's lawyers are opposing the move as they want a trial.

Yesterday, at a closed-door High Court hearing, they sought more time to respond to the two leaders' applications.

Justice Woo Bih Li has given Feer until tomorrow to present its arguments.

Both sides will then meet again on May 15 and 16, when the application for the summary judgment will be heard in the High Court.

The Hong Kong-based magazine's editor, Mr Hugo Restall, and its publisher, Review Publishing, are being sued for defamation by PM Lee and MM Lee over an article published in July last year.

The article questioned, among other things, Singapore's reputation for 'squeaky-clean government' and suggested that libel suits were used against critics to cover up 'real misdeeds'.

The Lees' lawyers said the article was calculated to disparage both leaders by suggesting they were corrupt and unfit for office, and that they would sue and suppress those who questioned them as the questions would expose their corruption.

The case has been stretched over the past months by Feer's application for a Queen's Counsel (QC) to represent it last year.

Its lawyers had argued, among other things, that many Senior Counsel here lacked experience in libel suits.

The Court of Appeal disagreed, saying it did not think the case was sufficiently difficult and complex to require a QC.

I noticed certain things in the development of this lawsuit.

Firstly, Feer was only given two days to respond to the two leader's applications. This was based on a high court ruling. I really wonder whether two days will be sufficient and whether it is fair, but maybe this isn't that big of an issue since this really depends on the nature of the applications. If they were entirely new, then Feer should probably have been given more time. I can't say for sure though.

Secondly, the Lee's have requested for a closed-door summary judgment so that they would not have to go to trial. I really wonder what the intentions of such a move are. If they were indeed defamed as the Lee's claimed, wouldn't it make much more sense to go to trial so they could publicly defend their reputations? Or are they afraid that their misdeeds might be exposed?

Thirdly, Feer argued for a Queens Counsel to represent them, but this was rejected by the Court of Appeal which claimed that the case was not sufficiently difficult and complex to require a QC. Now, since when did representation become a minimalist matter? Since when was it the Court's right to determine who represents you? This is really weird, just because other lawyers might be able to comprehend the case doesn't necessarily mean that they are the best, and most capable of defending you. I don't see how in any way the Court of Appeal was justified in rejecting the claim for a QC.

More importantly though, I wonder how this entire court proceeding would turn out. It would be interesting if the Feer actually argued on truth as a defense against defamation. This would really lead to a reopening of previous libel lawsuits, as well as investigation into allegations of government misdeeds. But alas, this is unlikely since the courts themselves have most likely been bought over already.

I wish FEER the best. It was noble of them to speak out, and more so to continue fighting this protracted and costly legal battle.

Continue reading >>

A Meritocracy in You and Me

Recent controversy over PM Lee's statement that those with 4As in the A levels make the best leaders have set me thinking. Is Singapore a Meritocracy or a Democracy, and which should we be.

While it is all fine and dandy to be meritocratic when it comes to education and job opportunities etc, is it really alright for Singapore's leaders to be chosen based on how well they do in written tests? Apart from the obvious flaws of the A Level and 4As as being a criteria of merit, the bigger question I have is this, should Singapore even be governed by the elite brains? Or should it be governed by the leader they choose?

And I think there's a reason why people favour democracies over other similarly meritocratic systems like aristocracies and plutocracies. The reason is simply because decision making isn't about how your policies are formulated as much as what policies are formulated. For instance, the issue isn't over whether GST hike should be 2% over 3 months or 6 months, but rather whether there should even be a GST hike at all. A democracy is meant to protect the interests of the people by giving them a direct say in representing themselves when it comes to the decision making process and this is something a meritocracy fails to do.

Yet, the situation in Singapore is much much different. Notice that there is a darth of debate over macroeconomic policies, or larger diplomatic issues during elections. In fact all the discussion there is revolves around lift upgrading, whether we're civic minded enough and all the less important issues. This unique situation is where governments tend to focus more on meritocracy than democracy. However, should this really be the case? Should Singapore continue to be a one-party state where Singaporeans essentially have no say over what the government does?

Continue reading >>

Money Money Money!

I noticed this in a recent press release.

While 100-per-cent owned by the Singapore Government through the Minister for Finance Inc, Temasek operates as a private investment company. Assets within our portfolio are owned by the firm, and are not part of a fund per se.

One moment Temasek Holdings admits it is owned by the Singapore Government, the next, it says its assets are owned by the firm. So i wonder, what is 100% owned by the Singapore Government if they are not assets?

Confusing financial terms that I barely understand aside, here's a little peak into the background of Temasek Holdings which clarifies matters a little (btw, this website lists Temasek Holdings as a SWF as do many)

In the 1960s the Government of Singapore already had direct stakes in local industries. The Ministry of Finance established Temasek Holdings in 1974 to manage these assets.

As the years progressed, Temasek began to diversify its holdings from the local Singapore market, to other surrounding countries.

So... Temasek Holdings is just a proxy for the Ministry of Finance to manage their assets, and is still fully owned by the government. How then does the claim that they are not owned by the government then stand? Or how can it say that it is not accountable to the Singapore Government?

Either someone's not being too transparent about things here, or we're all in deep shit. Think about it, if our money goes to Temasek Holdings, yet the Singapore Government has no means of ensuring that this money is wisely spent, essentially we're letting the "autonomous" people on the board play around with our money. And that's assuming that they are truly autonomous in the first place. I don't think Ho Ching, the executive director of Temasek Holdings, who also happens to be Lee Hsien Loong's wife would be exemplary of autonomy.

But more importantly, the feeble attempt to clarify how Temasek Holdings is not a Sovereign Wealth Fund not only doesn't work, but is also counter productive.

For one, many countries do see Temasek Holdings as a government run SWF, just look at all the recent media reports about SWFs saving companies from the Sub-prime crisis, Temasek Holdings is an oft-cited example of a SWF. And in fact there's a pretty good reason why they do so! They're the experts after all. So I doubt these countries will be swayed by a simple media report.

So, who are the people the government is trying to fool? I can only conclude that it's the U.S. and all the future countries Temasek Holdings plans to invest into. After all, not being a SWF means that Temasek Holdings would not have to be as transparent as the new international agreements suggest.

Yet, I can only think of two responses by such a blatant move.

The first would be disbelief. As I mentioned earlier, it's pretty obvious that you're run by the government when you're 100% owned by it, and further so because Ho Ching is in charge. Regardless of this, that's the way popular public perception is anyway, so it's going to take more than assertions to change this.

But the second and response that comes later... Oh that'll be nasty. With all the ongoing fears in so many countries about how SWFs are going to take over their corporations, one can only imagine the kind of backlash that'll occur once people start questioning the intentions of this recent move to remain opaque.

I mean, it's pretty dubious isn't it. Fully government owned, clearly a SWF, yet doesn't want to admit it. Does Temasek Holdings have something to hide? Assuming we want Temasek Holdings to be riskily investing our money all over the world in the first place (cough, UBS, cough), this surely isn't a confidence raising move that will give us more investment opportunities.

Yet again, such a conclusion might be hasty. As Managing Director of Corporate Affairs suggests in his letter,

The triple-A credit ratings that Temasek has received reflect the strong fundamentals and balance sheet strength of Temasek.

In conferring their ratings, the rating agencies are aware that the Singapore government does not guarantee Temasek's loans.

It's a pity though that triple A credit ratings refer to how credit worthy Temasek Holdings is, i.e. it's capacity to repay and service debt, and not whether it is a SWF or not. This attempt to obfuscate readers is inconceivable.

To further prove my point, let's take a look at where this triple A credit rating was obtained from. According to the Temasek Holdings own website, there are two credit ratings, AAA from Standard & Poor's and Aaa from Moody's. So let's just look at how Standard & Poor's determines their credit rating (somehow I can't seem to access Moody's, can't be bothered anyway)

Issue credit ratings are based, in varying degrees, on the following considerations:

* Likelihood of payment—capacity and willingness of the obligor to meet its financial commitment on an obligation in accordance with the terms of the obligation;
* Nature of and provisions of the obligation;
* Protection afforded by, and relative position of, the obligation in the event of bankruptcy, reorganization, or other arrangement under the laws of bankruptcy and other laws affecting creditors' rights.

And this is what AAA means

An obligation rated 'AAA' has the highest rating assigned by Standard & Poor's. The obligor's capacity to meet its financial commitment on the obligation is extremely strong.

Any sign of AAA referring to Temasek Holdings as not a Sovereign Wealth Fund? Yes? No?

Then let's look at what really should be a better indicator, Transparency Ratings. Yes this, and not irrelevant credit ratings. According to this website that judges the transparency of a country on a relatively simple scale of 1-10, with a recommended minimum rating of 8 in order to claim adequate transparency, so here's a look at some key countries and their SWFs.

GIC got a 6, Temasek Holdings got a 7, all 4 USA SWFs got either a 8 or 9, while Iran has a 2, Saudi Arabia a 4 and China a 2.

While Singapore does seem ahead of other countries, more can certainly be done in terms of transparency. And people don't magically see you as transparent if you release such obfuscating media reports claiming that Temasek Holdings is not a SWF.

Finally, the devil's disclaimer at the end of the article that the Singapore Propaganda Machine never fails to include.

This ultimately benefits Singapore and its people, through the dividends we contribute to our shareholder, the taxes we pay and the appreciation of our asset base.

It's the usual, "even if I play around with your money without being too transparent to you, at the end of the day it's for your own good!" Apart from the fact that there's a subtle notion of paternalism, I don't really see how this works.

If we lose investment opportunities because countries become skeptical of Temasek Holdings, I don't really see how any of the above will happen. Instead, if we are so reliant on Temasek Holdings, by golly, shouldn't they be accountable to our government.

Continue reading >>

The Standard for an "Involved Civic Society"

Taken from: http://www.p65.sg/2008/04/01/mas-selamat-memorabilia/

Mas Selamat memorabilia

While the whole Singapore is on a massive manhunt for fugitive Mas Selamat, some people have taken it on in a different spin, by producing and selling memorabilia with Mas’ face on mugs, T-shirts, caps, bags etc.

Some people have criticised it as distasteful, insensitive, making a joke of a serious matter and cashing in on a national threat. Others thought it is creative, entrepreneurial and helps to heighten awareness of the search.

Both have its valid points and I think it is good that people are expressing their views and making their stands. Instead of dividing the society, I think this will lead to better understanding of an alternative view and the acceptance and appreciation of a diversity of opinions among people. This is all part of a more involved civic society.

Posted by Baey Yam Keng

My first reaction to this was -- a feeling of insult. He makes it sound as if Singaporeans are that incapable of engaging in mature discussion that even an issue as minor as the one above would lead to "better understanding of an alternative view and the acceptance and appreciation of a diversity of opinions among people".

"I think it is good that people are expressing their views and making their stands." -- Now he sets this example as the standard for "expressing their views and making their stands" Someone here seems oblivious to the governmental repression on the mainstream media in Singapore. Someone is clearly unaware that our main source of news is a state-controlled one, that leaves no room for "expressing views" or "making stands" on a significant enough platform that the internet simply cannot provide.

One word for Mr Baey - Sneaky. This is an attempt to veil the truth, an attempt to lead people to think that freedom of expression is already being protected in our society. Bullshit. Only when people are allowed to openly discuss unfair electoral policies such as the GRC system, or biased lift upgraded schemes, can we then say "I think it is good that people are expressing their views and making their stands."

"I think this will lead to... the acceptance and appreciation of a diversity of opinions among people" Hah. I don't see any acceptance of my opinion that ministers should not be treated like gods.

And the best quote of the day. "This is all part of a more involved civic society." So, an involved civic society simply means that you and I talk about things like selling Mas Selamat shirts. Matters of little importance on a national level. If this is the standard, then why is Singapore ranked 147th by Reporters Without Borders.

More importantly, my comment for this quote is -- Sneaky. Yes, i'm using the same word to describe this statement. But what else is there to it? It implies that all we need is people who are concerned about Singapore's future. But what is the use of this if our government does not engage with the people? What point will there be if ministerial pay hikes continue despite widening income gaps and rising consumer prices? What use will "civic involvement" be if the government continues to gerrymander and keep opposition voices in parliament squashed?

Ministers were voted in to solve problems, not to shift the burden of solving problems onto citizens, and certainly not to tell them what a "civic society" should be like. We voted you in (technically), so it's our general will that should decide what is done, not you telling us what to do.

Continue reading >>

Carbon Capture

Carbon sequestration is an approach to mitigate global warming by trapping carbon dioxide emitted from power plants in underground sites. It is a new technology with uncertain benefits and very little experimentation into. Australia's pioneering of this underground carbon storage facility will certainly be beneficial to further studies in this area.

Australia's first underground carbon storage facility has opened in the southern state of Victoria.

The geo-sequestration plant, the only one in the Southern hemisphere, will capture CO2 from a power station and store it 2km below the surface.

Researchers believe the pilot scheme will help Australia make deep cuts to its greenhouse gas emissions.

Environmentalists, though, are not convinced that the technology is appropriate.

'Very significant'

Australia's new carbon "tomb" lies in an old gas field near the town of Warrnambool, west of Melbourne.

Under this type of geo-sequestration, CO2 (carbon dioxide) from power plants is compressed into a liquid and pumped underground.

Several years of testing have convinced scientists that the site in southern Australia will be able to safely absorb 100,000 tonnes of greenhouse gases.

Rock formations have been described as giant sponges that will soak up the CO2. The hope is that the dense fluid will remain locked away indefinitely.

One of the project's chief architects, Dr Peter Cook, says the technology will be carefully scrutinised.

"What we'll have is probably the most comprehensive monitoring programme for stored CO2 anywhere in the world," he said.

"It will also be one of the largest pilot projects in the world.

"It's a very, very significant project even by world standards and we're having a number of international groups who'll be working with us as part of this experiment.

"So, it will be the first real test of geo-sequestration under Australian conditions."

The scheme has the support of the Australian government and the country's powerful coal industry, which is looking at ways to secure a greener future.

A senior chemical engineer has told the BBC that geo-sequestration should be an effective way to curb CO2 emissions if leaks from underground storage areas can be avoided.

There is a warning, though, that this controversial process is expensive.

Environmental groups believe it has too many unknowns.

They have insisted that the money spent on the Victorian project should have been allocated to proven technologies, such as solar and wind power.

Fossil fuel dependency
While carbon sequestration solves the problem of carbon emissions into the atmosphere, it certainly will not aid in reducing the fossil fuel dependency of nations. In fact, it threatens to exacerbate the problem.

Not only does it not reduce the fossil fuels consumed, but it also requires additional fossil fuels to power the process of sequestering the carbon dioxide. Estimates are at 11-41%, an amount that is unlikely to decrease much.

Thus in reality, carbon capture may be a technology that helps combat global warming, but it still doesn't deal with another equally pressing problem -- the depletion of natural resources.

There is really no point investing in new technology that is inherently dependent on natural resources if these natural resources are going to deplete soon. Such money can be better invested in renewable energy such as solar or wind technology.

What about the rising oil price and the unstable Gulf region? If these power plants depend on oil, the problem could be even more disastrous. The rising oil price is the result of excessive demand, something an energy intensive activity like carbon sequestration would certainly contribute to. If economic instability is the goal, then by all means, convert to carbon sequestration. But if it is to be shunned, then the choice is clear -- stick to renewable energy.

Geographic limitations
Another problem with this technology is that it can only be used where there are appropriate carbon "tombs" that can hold the carbon dioxide safely and that can be used for a sufficiently long time such that the initial costs are covered. Yet, can such carbon "tombs" be found anywhere and everywhere? Oil and gas fields, saline formations, unminable coal seams, and saline-filled basalt formations have been suggested as storage sites. For countries, or specific regions within these countries to be precise, that lack such storage sites, does it then mean that this technology is useless?

Some have also suggested ocean storage. The problem with this is two-fold. Firstly, CO2 causes the acidity of the water to change, killing many ocean organisms. Secondly, dissolved CO2 would eventually equillibrate with the atmosphere, so the storage would not be permanent. Landlocked countries aside, this isn't an ideal solution either.

With so many geographical limitations, carbon capture really doesn't sound too ideal to me.

On a side note, Singapore's was beaten flat by Australia in the pioneering game. Eat that Lee Kuan Yew.

Continue reading >>