DBS iOS app.
Showing posts with label Singapore. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Singapore. Show all posts
24 August 2018
10 September 2015
Singapore Elections 2015 : This is My Man Dr Chee Soon Juan
"we are on the cusp of something momentous, the soul of this nation is stirring and we must be the ones to awaken it"
Highlights for me : [14:24-16:10] [25:33-27:19]
18 February 2013
Inadequacy of Singapore Main Stream Media
Link to post by Bertha Henson. Hong Lim protests makes front page of South China Morning post but grossly "under-reported" by our own local press.
16 February 2013
Singapore 6.9 mio : Hong Lim Park
 |
| At the start [Photo credit : PHPC] |
 |
| 3 hours later at the end ... still packed |
.JPG) |
| Panoramic view |
10 January 2013
Top Infected Singapore Website
14 December 2012
Low Thia Khiang on Michael Palmer Affair
Low Thia Khiang : "No process is fool proof. Michael Palmer has been a well-balanced Speaker. He has managed Parliamentary affairs very well, very efficiently ... giving both front and back benches sufficient time to debate. He's also given members of the Opposition sufficient time to engage the front bench. Personally, I quite like him as a Speaker .. it's unfortunate that he has resigned. I hope those people who have been critical of the Workers' Party, the media as well, I hope they will display fairness and integrity in their comments."
[Contrast to PAP reaction to Yaw Shih Leong affair eg here and here]
Mr Low, what a classy gentleman you are. Unlike the PAP - picking on every single mistake of the Opposition, taking people to Court over every little criticism and making all sorts of excuses for their own mistakes ("ponding", anyone?). There is no need for Mr Low to point out the hypocritical behaviour of the PAP. It is plain for all to see.
13 December 2012
Singapore : China-style Firewall ?
- 12Dec12 : News of the "Palmer Affair" breaks.
- 13Dec12 : Thus far today, unable to get into Temasek Review Emeritus website to read posts coming which I see coming through my RSS feeds. All other websites OK.
- TRE technical glitch or something more sinister at work? Or pure coincidence?
24 September 2012
31 July 2012
Olympics Table Tennis Women's Semi Final
We are proud of you! 明天再加油! Win the bronze. 你一定行的！
Addendum 01Aug12 10:05 pm : Congratulations 冯天薇。我爱你！ Addendum 07Aug12 9:05 pm : Congratulations on winning the team bronze. Magnificent 李佳薇 .
10 July 2012
SingTel 3G Signal = Bad
- Been receiving SMSs like this quite frequently of late, at home right smack in the middle of Singapore (high up on the 34th floor) far away from the coastline.
- From what I understand, this "intrusion" is only happening because my SingTel signal is so weak that my iPhone picks up another carrier's (in this case Indonesian) signal.
- Dropped mobile voice calls and bad connections are a way of life here.
- Forced to turn into an anti-SingTel blog here by poor service. Maybe it's time to switch carrier after having been with SingTel all these years.
14 June 2012
Singapore Law : WTF ?
Double standards. Same offense different punishment. (6 month jail vs SGD 1,000 fine). Does a mere "sales executive" deserve a heavier punishment than a "well known plastic surgeon"? Do our judges have that much discretion in sentencing? Did the law change so much between 2005 and 2008?
09 June 2012
How Bad is SingTel ? Very Very Poor Indeed.
Watching Starhub coverage of Euro 2012 on my cable TV and also tested that Starhub delivery of same via web browsers on mobile devices like iPhone and iPad. Everything works like a dream. No excuses about Flash constraints, set-top reboots, etc.
Contrast this with SingTel delivery of EPL and CL the past 2 seasons. Long time readers of this blog will remember my bitter complaints about SingTel streaming lags and regular breakdown in broadcast. Complained till the cows come home via email, phone, public shaming (Facebook, blog) and yet completely ignored by SingTel. 2 years later it is obvious that problems have not been adequately addressed eg see here. Too many people viewing and switching channels causing system freezes. What crap excuse.
My EPL/CL delivery from SingTel comes via their mio Stadium (=via internet) service. Consider how important the Apple iOS platform has grown in the last few years. Any company in tune with the market place would by now have adapted to deliver on the most popular platform around. And yet, try watching EPL on mio Stadium in iOS and you still get a blank white space where the screen is supposed to show up :=
And here's what you get when you try to watch match clips on SingTel's BPL App (designed for Apple iOS and yet has never ever worked from day 1 over 2 years ago). I have also never undestood why the App requires WiFi to be turned off and to run on 3G only? Is that so that users then chalk up 3G usage which is chargeable? If so, that is so low class and cheap of SingTel. (Anyway, the App still doesn't work if you turn off WiFi).
Much like another Singapore Govt linked company - SMRT. Save and stinge on maintenance, fail to keep up to date with changes (in population and ridership) in their marketplace, emphasis on upfront short term delivery at expense of longer term health. Now a laughing stock of the world. Ditto PUB and flooding.
Same for PAP Government. Bring in FTs to boost short term output at expense of long term decline in quality of life in country. Clueless what low regard the common folk has for them. Lost touch with the common ground. I reckon watershed Singapore 2016 elections at the rate the PAP is going.
Stopped complaining about SingTel here not because problems solved but because I give up on them. Seeing how well everything works on Starhub tonight has just reminded me of how it should be.
Excellent Starhub. Grade A+. "In tune with customer needs".
 |
| Euro 2012 on iPad via Starhub - very smooth |
Contrast this with SingTel delivery of EPL and CL the past 2 seasons. Long time readers of this blog will remember my bitter complaints about SingTel streaming lags and regular breakdown in broadcast. Complained till the cows come home via email, phone, public shaming (Facebook, blog) and yet completely ignored by SingTel. 2 years later it is obvious that problems have not been adequately addressed eg see here. Too many people viewing and switching channels causing system freezes. What crap excuse.
My EPL/CL delivery from SingTel comes via their mio Stadium (=via internet) service. Consider how important the Apple iOS platform has grown in the last few years. Any company in tune with the market place would by now have adapted to deliver on the most popular platform around. And yet, try watching EPL on mio Stadium in iOS and you still get a blank white space where the screen is supposed to show up :=
 |
| mio Stadium on iOS - blank white space |
And here's what you get when you try to watch match clips on SingTel's BPL App (designed for Apple iOS and yet has never ever worked from day 1 over 2 years ago). I have also never undestood why the App requires WiFi to be turned off and to run on 3G only? Is that so that users then chalk up 3G usage which is chargeable? If so, that is so low class and cheap of SingTel. (Anyway, the App still doesn't work if you turn off WiFi).
 |
| SingTel BPL App - match clips don't work on iOS |
Crap Singtel. Grade F-. "Don't know, don't want to know, don't care".
Much like another Singapore Govt linked company - SMRT. Save and stinge on maintenance, fail to keep up to date with changes (in population and ridership) in their marketplace, emphasis on upfront short term delivery at expense of longer term health. Now a laughing stock of the world. Ditto PUB and flooding.
Same for PAP Government. Bring in FTs to boost short term output at expense of long term decline in quality of life in country. Clueless what low regard the common folk has for them. Lost touch with the common ground. I reckon watershed Singapore 2016 elections at the rate the PAP is going.
Stopped complaining about SingTel here not because problems solved but because I give up on them. Seeing how well everything works on Starhub tonight has just reminded me of how it should be.
27 September 2011
GIC : Smoke and Mirrors
Interesting post from Thoughts of a Cynical Investor blog.
I had not realized that GIC posted its performance in USD terms. The only measure relevant to us Singapore citizens is SGD returns, so why don't they tell us that instead/as well? We have the right to know.
I had not realized that GIC posted its performance in USD terms. The only measure relevant to us Singapore citizens is SGD returns, so why don't they tell us that instead/as well? We have the right to know.
23 September 2011
Kenneth Jeyaretnam : GIC, UBS and the Death Spiral of your CPF funds
Link to his blog post here.
Of all the banks out there to invest in, we had to choose a rogue bank. UBS seem to have been involved in every single major financial debacle in the last 20+ years, including LTCM, sub-prime, abetting tax evasion. And now Kweku Adoboli. If we wanted to invest in prop trading, we might as well have gone with the best ie Goldman.
It is simply not possible for a rogue trader to do this on his own. If it was just him alone, then it definitely is a failure of management to install proper controls. Top management should be sacked. No 2 ways about it.
I say definitely split UBS into wealth management and investment banking. Our CPF money should only be in the non-speculative, sustainable business bit ie wealth management.
Of all the banks out there to invest in, we had to choose a rogue bank. UBS seem to have been involved in every single major financial debacle in the last 20+ years, including LTCM, sub-prime, abetting tax evasion. And now Kweku Adoboli. If we wanted to invest in prop trading, we might as well have gone with the best ie Goldman.
It is simply not possible for a rogue trader to do this on his own. If it was just him alone, then it definitely is a failure of management to install proper controls. Top management should be sacked. No 2 ways about it.
I say definitely split UBS into wealth management and investment banking. Our CPF money should only be in the non-speculative, sustainable business bit ie wealth management.
15 August 2011
08 July 2011
Ngiam Tong Dow's Recent Lecture at NTU
Could not find a link to this so copied and pasted here. This guy "gets it".
By Ngiam Tong Dow, Straits Times, 2 July 2011
THE General Election on May 7 this year yielded the best possible outcome for Singapore. The People’s Action Party (PAP) Government was returned to power with an 81-6 majority although its vote share dipped to 60.1 per cent, reflecting a secular decline. The Workers’ Party (WP) won Aljunied, a Group Representation Constituency.
The greatest value of the WP win in Aljunied is that it breached a psychological barrier, giving a boost to the opposition and its supporters. Politics is about winning the hearts and minds of the people. Trust is the cornerstone. This election shows some chipping away of the trust that past generations of Singaporeans had in the PAP. This was shown, for example, in the way Aljunied voters did not heed the statements from senior PAP leaders warning them against choosing the opposition. The challenge for Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and his colleagues is to win back their trust.
The PAP began as a multiracial grassroots party. Its largely English-educated leadership was supported by the ordinary man in the street, clerks, postmen, technicians, small businessmen, carpenters and barbers. Mr Lee Kuan Yew and his Cabinet colleagues were seen by the electorate as selfless men, sacrificing promising careers for an uncertain future in politics. PAP cadres rode bicycles to hang up election posters on lamp-posts. The party could not even pay for a soft drink. Former MP Chan Chee Seng told me that they paid out of their own pockets.
The founding generation lived frugal lives. My permanent secretary drew a monthly salary of $1,950, just three times more than mine, a young rookie, at $680. When the gap between the highest and the lowest paid is excessive, the rank and file become disgruntled. Insolence sets in. Morale goes down. The organisation, whether Government, business, or professional practice, begins its slow decline.
The Government has done most things right. Over the five decades since independence in 1965, Singapore’s per capita income has increased from $500 to $50,000. Unemployment rates have fallen from over 10 per cent to 3 per cent. The Housing Board has resettled and rehoused 85 per cent of the population. Average education levels have been raised from primary to tertiary levels in one generation.
Yet the Government’s popular vote has dropped to 60.1 per cent, close to the psychological tipping point of 60 per cent. I feel that this decline is due in part to the Government’s own policies. Some Singaporeans believe less and less that the Government acts in their best interest. In the earlier years, Mr Lee Kuan Yew’s rallying cry was that no one owes Singapore a living. Despite its hard edge, the older generation believed that then PM Lee Kuan Yew and his Government put Singaporeans first.
Not having gone through the hard times of the earlier years, the young generation today is not willing to give the Government the benefit of the doubt. They judge the Government by its actions, not just promises.
Changes in two aspects of PAP policies can help build more trust: ministerial salary, and being more open about national reserves.
The formula used for benchmarking ministerial salaries to top earners in the private sector is perceived as a case of heads you win, tails we lose. Worse, it is regarded as self-serving.
A better benchmark would be the median income at the 50th percentile. If we can agree that the core role of government is to raise the livelihoods of the people, then the median income is a good measure of the Government’s performance. As a minister’s job is more complex than that of the average wage earner, his compensation can be 10, 15, 20 or 25 times the average. Ministerial salaries can range from $40,000 to $100,000 a month or somewhere in between. This would be about $480,000 to $1.2 million annually.
The Government should adopt a clean wage system and not use incentive schemes modelled on the private sector. Profit may be the measure of performance in a company, but not in a public administration. Using gross domestic product (GDP) as a proxy for performance of the Government and using this as one indicator to determine bonuses for ministers is deeply flawed. For instance, the GDP of Singapore can expand simply by importing more low-cost foreign workers – but this would be detrimental to citizens’ interests. It is good that a committee has been set up to review salaries of ministers and political office-holders.
To my mind, even more crucial than revising ministerial salaries is the need for transparency in the management of Singapore’s national savings.
These are accumulated from Central Provident Fund contributions, budget surpluses, revenue from land sales and dividends from government-linked companies such as DBS, Singapore Airlines (SIA), SingTel, ST Engineering, Keppel and Sembcorp. These enterprises were established with equity from the Ministry of Finance or the Ministry of Defence.
Temasek Holdings and the Government of Singapore Investment Corporation (GIC) are the wealth managers for the Singapore Government. Temasek Holdings was established by the Ministry of Finance to manage the equity investments of the Government, such as SIA, Neptune Orient Lines, DBS and other government-linked companies. Though Temasek was expected to play an entrepreneurial role like its predecessor, the Economic Development Board, it has become more and more of an equity investment manager no different from private hedge funds. In fact, it has sold off some knowledge-based government-linked companies.
Temasek and GIC are profiled in the financial press as Singapore’s sovereign funds. They are not. They are just wealth managers for the Ministry of Finance. The ministry is the custodian of Singapore’s national wealth. The President exercises custodial powers only over drawdown of past reserves.
There is considerable misunderstanding over the governance of Singapore’s reserves. Few people understand just what the reserves are composed of and which agency is responsible for which portion of the funds. To be sure, Temasek Holdings and GIC do publish annual statements on their funds, even disclosing returns. But these are neither comprehensive nor specific.
The Singapore Government can seek to build more trust with citizens by being more open about the size and composition of the national reserves.
While there is no outcry on the secrecy now, a more open, transparent approach can reduce confusion and dispel any doubts on the issue. I would urge the Minister of Finance to consider publishing an annual audited statement on the size and composition of our reserves. It can be presented as a White Paper to the new Parliament, which is due to begin its term. – ST
The writer is a former permanent secretary for finance in Singapore. This article is based on al lecture delivered on Tuesday at the Nanyang Centre for Public Adminstration at National Technological University.
By Ngiam Tong Dow, Straits Times, 2 July 2011
THE General Election on May 7 this year yielded the best possible outcome for Singapore. The People’s Action Party (PAP) Government was returned to power with an 81-6 majority although its vote share dipped to 60.1 per cent, reflecting a secular decline. The Workers’ Party (WP) won Aljunied, a Group Representation Constituency.
The greatest value of the WP win in Aljunied is that it breached a psychological barrier, giving a boost to the opposition and its supporters. Politics is about winning the hearts and minds of the people. Trust is the cornerstone. This election shows some chipping away of the trust that past generations of Singaporeans had in the PAP. This was shown, for example, in the way Aljunied voters did not heed the statements from senior PAP leaders warning them against choosing the opposition. The challenge for Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and his colleagues is to win back their trust.
The PAP began as a multiracial grassroots party. Its largely English-educated leadership was supported by the ordinary man in the street, clerks, postmen, technicians, small businessmen, carpenters and barbers. Mr Lee Kuan Yew and his Cabinet colleagues were seen by the electorate as selfless men, sacrificing promising careers for an uncertain future in politics. PAP cadres rode bicycles to hang up election posters on lamp-posts. The party could not even pay for a soft drink. Former MP Chan Chee Seng told me that they paid out of their own pockets.
The founding generation lived frugal lives. My permanent secretary drew a monthly salary of $1,950, just three times more than mine, a young rookie, at $680. When the gap between the highest and the lowest paid is excessive, the rank and file become disgruntled. Insolence sets in. Morale goes down. The organisation, whether Government, business, or professional practice, begins its slow decline.
The Government has done most things right. Over the five decades since independence in 1965, Singapore’s per capita income has increased from $500 to $50,000. Unemployment rates have fallen from over 10 per cent to 3 per cent. The Housing Board has resettled and rehoused 85 per cent of the population. Average education levels have been raised from primary to tertiary levels in one generation.
Yet the Government’s popular vote has dropped to 60.1 per cent, close to the psychological tipping point of 60 per cent. I feel that this decline is due in part to the Government’s own policies. Some Singaporeans believe less and less that the Government acts in their best interest. In the earlier years, Mr Lee Kuan Yew’s rallying cry was that no one owes Singapore a living. Despite its hard edge, the older generation believed that then PM Lee Kuan Yew and his Government put Singaporeans first.
Not having gone through the hard times of the earlier years, the young generation today is not willing to give the Government the benefit of the doubt. They judge the Government by its actions, not just promises.
Changes in two aspects of PAP policies can help build more trust: ministerial salary, and being more open about national reserves.
The formula used for benchmarking ministerial salaries to top earners in the private sector is perceived as a case of heads you win, tails we lose. Worse, it is regarded as self-serving.
A better benchmark would be the median income at the 50th percentile. If we can agree that the core role of government is to raise the livelihoods of the people, then the median income is a good measure of the Government’s performance. As a minister’s job is more complex than that of the average wage earner, his compensation can be 10, 15, 20 or 25 times the average. Ministerial salaries can range from $40,000 to $100,000 a month or somewhere in between. This would be about $480,000 to $1.2 million annually.
The Government should adopt a clean wage system and not use incentive schemes modelled on the private sector. Profit may be the measure of performance in a company, but not in a public administration. Using gross domestic product (GDP) as a proxy for performance of the Government and using this as one indicator to determine bonuses for ministers is deeply flawed. For instance, the GDP of Singapore can expand simply by importing more low-cost foreign workers – but this would be detrimental to citizens’ interests. It is good that a committee has been set up to review salaries of ministers and political office-holders.
To my mind, even more crucial than revising ministerial salaries is the need for transparency in the management of Singapore’s national savings.
These are accumulated from Central Provident Fund contributions, budget surpluses, revenue from land sales and dividends from government-linked companies such as DBS, Singapore Airlines (SIA), SingTel, ST Engineering, Keppel and Sembcorp. These enterprises were established with equity from the Ministry of Finance or the Ministry of Defence.
Temasek Holdings and the Government of Singapore Investment Corporation (GIC) are the wealth managers for the Singapore Government. Temasek Holdings was established by the Ministry of Finance to manage the equity investments of the Government, such as SIA, Neptune Orient Lines, DBS and other government-linked companies. Though Temasek was expected to play an entrepreneurial role like its predecessor, the Economic Development Board, it has become more and more of an equity investment manager no different from private hedge funds. In fact, it has sold off some knowledge-based government-linked companies.
Temasek and GIC are profiled in the financial press as Singapore’s sovereign funds. They are not. They are just wealth managers for the Ministry of Finance. The ministry is the custodian of Singapore’s national wealth. The President exercises custodial powers only over drawdown of past reserves.
There is considerable misunderstanding over the governance of Singapore’s reserves. Few people understand just what the reserves are composed of and which agency is responsible for which portion of the funds. To be sure, Temasek Holdings and GIC do publish annual statements on their funds, even disclosing returns. But these are neither comprehensive nor specific.
The Singapore Government can seek to build more trust with citizens by being more open about the size and composition of the national reserves.
While there is no outcry on the secrecy now, a more open, transparent approach can reduce confusion and dispel any doubts on the issue. I would urge the Minister of Finance to consider publishing an annual audited statement on the size and composition of our reserves. It can be presented as a White Paper to the new Parliament, which is due to begin its term. – ST
The writer is a former permanent secretary for finance in Singapore. This article is based on al lecture delivered on Tuesday at the Nanyang Centre for Public Adminstration at National Technological University.
23 May 2011
Singapore Political Cycle : Changing Fortunes?
 |
| PAP rally at Hong Lim Park in 1959 |
 |
| PAP rally in 2011 |
 |
| Workers' Party rally in Hougang in 2011 |
17 May 2011
Catherine Lim : The GE2011 Political Demise of Lee Kuan Yew
Catherine Lim : "He is likely to carry this stance to his grave, believing till the end in his own misfortune of having an ungrateful people incapable of understanding him and appreciating all that he had done for them. Outwardly chastened but inwardly disillusioned, he must be particularly disappointed with his own PAP colleagues, for their failure to share his passionate belief that his was the right and proven way to achieve the well-being of the society. It is not so much megalomania as the sheer inflexibility that convictions sometimes harden into, something that will probably continue to give him a completely different interpretation of the devastation of GE 2011."
Link to her full blog post here. Must read.
Link to her full blog post here. Must read.
10 May 2011
BG Yeo Leaves Singapore Politics
"Why did we lose Aljunied?
Mr Low Thia Kiang himself said that they won Aljunied not because the Aljunied team did not do a good job, but because the voters wanted WP to be their voice in Parliament.
Mr Low’s analysis is fair and I agree with him. This desire for a strong WP voice in Parliament was a political tide which came in through Aljunied which we were unable to withstand despite our very best efforts. Right from the start, the Workers Party made Aljunied a national battleground."
Clearly something wrong with our political system when a good man like BG Yeo loses whilst airhead bimbo Tin Pei Ling gets into Parliament.
Sir - my friends and I salute you.
Run for President and safeguard our reserves?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)