Since the last election, I have move from Serangoon Garden closer to Aljunied. In the process, I have shifted from Aljunied GRC to Marine Parade GRC.
In the last election, I took very seriously the prospect of bringing a credible opposition into government, because my vote actually counted in the most hotly-contested election. This year, I'm just taking a step back to laugh.
There has been so much talk about the need for a credible opposition in parliament. Whether we look upon them as insurance policies or co-drivers, the idea that we need more opposition in parliament to check the PAP running roughshod with their policies has really resonated with the electorate. In this respect, it is actually quite interesting to be in Marine Parade, because it would seem that most people who vote for the NSP are probably registering their displeasure at giving TPL a free ticket into parliament. Yes, Nicole Seah may be (relatively) mature, but do we really think that she (and those men behind her) are actually the credible opposition we keep talking about? So the Marine Parade vote will be more interesting as an indication of how influential new media had become in its ability to mobilise the masses.
So let's imagine what will happen if the opposition manage to win Aljunied and a few of the SMCs. That might possibly give them up to 10% of parliament, which I suppose is a decent number to promote debate. So we should expect a lot more public airing of the issues under deliberation over the next five years.
The question is whether a public airing of these issues will actually lead to better decisions. Perhaps it will lead to more populist outcomes, but are these necessarily better? And we can expect the blogs and forums to have lots of fun chewing on the debate.
Fast forward a few years to the next election. If Singapore has done even better than over the past five, the opposition in parliament will probably claim credit for the advances. Meanwhile, the PAP will probably attribute it to their effectiveness in spite of the opposition, or they might say that this goes to show their policy-making has always been sound. Of course, people will fight to claim credit over the successful ones, but that is not always easy to measure in the space of five years.
But what if things go downhill? The PAP will surely then blame the opposition in parliament for slowing down the decision-making process, or making it a popularity contest. The opposition will probably cite this as evidence that PAP isn't as good as it was made out to be anyway. Still, it would seem to me that if a lot of opposition gets in, the PAP would have a slight incentive to make these next five years not quite as good as the last.
The bottom line is that five years later, it will be very difficult to tell if having more opposition in parliament helped us. So what then, do we kick them out of parliament or give them an even larger share so that they can try again? What are our KPIs to know if having more opposition helped? Will having more debate in parliament actually improve the decisions, or will it just provide fodder for armchair critics?
So at the end of the day, it is very dangerous to vote opposition just for the sake of it. Fortunately for the opposition, they have a fair number of credible candidates this election, so that should make it much more interesting. Unfortunately none of them is in Marine Parade.
Showing posts with label government. Show all posts
Showing posts with label government. Show all posts
Sunday, May 01, 2011
Sunday, April 15, 2007
call from america
I realise I don't really have an opinion on ministerial pay, per se. Is it too high or too low, I don't know. The thing that annoys me is the arguments some people raise, the two most prominent being that 1) public service is about self-sacrifice and 2) our ministers earn much more compared to other countries.
For the first point, you can see my previous post. For the second point, I always thought that this was a moot point because in other countries, top leaders enjoy plenty of other kickbacks such as real power, and a whole bunch of business affiliationsa and concessions that might be seen as corruption on our sunny island. Anyway, rather than belabour the point, I found that it was expressed far more eloquently and convincingly (with numbers and statistics some more) by Janadas Devan in his recent Call from America. I heard this on 93.8 Live, but since managed to find it online as well. Happy reading ...
For the first point, you can see my previous post. For the second point, I always thought that this was a moot point because in other countries, top leaders enjoy plenty of other kickbacks such as real power, and a whole bunch of business affiliationsa and concessions that might be seen as corruption on our sunny island. Anyway, rather than belabour the point, I found that it was expressed far more eloquently and convincingly (with numbers and statistics some more) by Janadas Devan in his recent Call from America. I heard this on 93.8 Live, but since managed to find it online as well. Happy reading ...
Radio Singapore International - Call From America with Janadas Devan
How much is Hillary Clinton worth?
April 11, 2007
How much were the Clintons worth when Mr Bill Clinton stepped down as president in 2000? Answer: More than US$11 million below zero – which was what they owed to all the lawyers who had helped to defend them against a flurry of charges in the 1990s. They had no home, having lived in public housing for a good portion of their adult lives – in the White House for eight years, and before that in the Governor’s mansion in Arkansas. Unlike almost every other previous presidential couple in the second half of the 20th century, the Clintons had no private vacation home – no Kennebunkport, as in the case of the elder Bush; no Crawford ranch, as in the case of the younger Bush..
How much are the Clintons worth now?
There are no exact figures – Mrs Hilary Clinton, as Senator, is obliged to disclose only a broad estimate of her wealth: for example, that the Clintons have a joint bank account worth between $5 million to $25 million, as well as a blind trust worth in the same range – but their total net assets must be in the tens of millions of dollars. We know that Mrs Clinton made at least US$10 million on her memoirs and Mr Clinton at least US$12 million on his. We also know that in 2004 alone, Mr Clinton made at least US$4 million giving speeches. The Clintons have paid off all their legal debts, and now own three homes –in Washington DC, in Long Island and in New York City. Aside from his speech making and memoir writing, his philanthropic work and his work on his Presidential Library, Mr Clinton is also an advisor to funds run by the Yucaipa Companies, a California private equity firm controlled by one of his many best friends, the billionaire Ronald Burkle. The New York Times reported last year that Mr Clinton will receive a share of the profits in the funds “should their returns exceed 9 percent over the life of the funds. One fund had reported a gain of 51.3 percent and the other 25.8 percent in 2005.” Mr. Clinton, according to the Times is also a partner in another “Yucaipa fund that invests in overseas ventures, for which
he receives regular payments and would draw one-third of the profits when the
fund is dissolved at least five years from now.”
''If we make money, he makes money,'' Mr. Burkle was reported to have said. Mr. Clinton's share of the profits in the Yucaipa funds could reach into the tens of millions of dollars. Not bad for a man who earned only US$250,000 a year when he was president and who had massive debts when he left office six years ago.
Which is better: The US system of relative poverty for officials while serving in government, followed by rather obscene amounts of money once they leave; or the Singapore system of relatively high salaries for public servants so they will stay in government for as long as possible? Americans and Singaporeans will have to decide these questions for themselves.But it should be noted the US system has a cost. Mr Clinton is only one man, and he is not the only former president who has grown rich in his post-presidential years. Of more concern are the thousands of other public servants.
Take judges. Chief Justice John Roberts complained in January of the low salaries judges get. Appellate court judge get US$175,000 a year, about the same as first-year associates at top metropolitan law firms. And federal district court judges are paid about half what senior law professors get. As a result, the bench is losing judges. The hemorrhaging “has now reached the level of a constitutional crisis,” Chief Justice Roberts said.Mr Clinton and other famous politicians can take care of themselves easily in their retirement. Not so judges and other public servants on low government salaries. The best leave for the private sector the first opportunity they get. They don’t lose. Instead the Government suffers; the judiciary is weakened; the public loses.
Tuesday, November 14, 2006
the only things sure in life are death and ...
Was it just me, or did anyone else have a good laugh when they saw the headlines this morning. The first article caught my eye, and I started reading:
But wait, my eye drifted across the page, and was captivated by yet another headline.
Anyway, I just started laughing then, because I couldn't help but wonder which editor does the layout for the front page. Because after all Lydia Lim's hard work, some simpleton might glance across the front page and, without reading, immediately jump to the misguided conclusion that the increased revenues from GST might not entirely benefit the lower income. After all, it might seem superficially obvious that an increase to the upper tax brackets would be a more exact approach to achieve the desired outcome professed. But I'm sure the economists have done their math right when they picked on the GST.
Perhaps there yet remains some rebellious streak in the mouthpiece.
Added Later:
So I had dinner with an old friend and discovered that the GST hike was one of her projects. And apparently the government never intended to sell it purely as a means to offset lower-income aid, but the press decided to add its own spin ... to make it more palatable? Kind of backfired, if you ask me.
Among all the furor the GST raised, this stands out as a well-reasoned pro-GST post. Andy Mukherjee also explains it in layman'ss terms for Bloomberg. I'm tired of people railing at economics that they don't understand. Personally, I figure life goes on ...
To finance more govt spending to help the lower income:Whenever you see Lydia Lim's byline, you know that this is a matter of political sensitivity. And I think she was in top form because in just the sub-header and the first two paragraphs alone, we already see three mentions that the lower income groups will be the beneficiaries of this tax hike. It even mentioned that they would also alter the constitution to utilise some of the reserves. I read the article and of course was utterly convinced that my dollar would go towards those who needed it more than I.
GST will go up to 7 per cent
PM pledges more help in several areas, and more regular Workfare bonuses
By Lydia Lim, SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT
HE Goods and Services Tax (GST) will go up from 5 to 7 per cent to pay for more government spending to help the lower income.Mapping out his government's plan for the next five years and beyond, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong yesterday pledged to 'tilt the balance' of public spending in favour of lower-income Singaporeans, who are not benefiting as much as other groups from economic growth...
But wait, my eye drifted across the page, and was captivated by yet another headline.
Corporate tax rate may have to be loweredI don't know who wrote this one, and I don't really have much to say about it. Surely it is quite brief and to the point because the compelling logic of cutting the tax rate to remain competitive needs no explanation.
SINGAPORE is prepared to cut its corporate tax rate further to remain competitive in the global race for investments.Announcing a hike in the Goods and Services Tax (GST) in Parliament, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said Singapore might have to adjust accordingly if Hong Kong moved to lower its current rate of 17.5 per cent...
Anyway, I just started laughing then, because I couldn't help but wonder which editor does the layout for the front page. Because after all Lydia Lim's hard work, some simpleton might glance across the front page and, without reading, immediately jump to the misguided conclusion that the increased revenues from GST might not entirely benefit the lower income. After all, it might seem superficially obvious that an increase to the upper tax brackets would be a more exact approach to achieve the desired outcome professed. But I'm sure the economists have done their math right when they picked on the GST.
Perhaps there yet remains some rebellious streak in the mouthpiece.
Added Later:
So I had dinner with an old friend and discovered that the GST hike was one of her projects. And apparently the government never intended to sell it purely as a means to offset lower-income aid, but the press decided to add its own spin ... to make it more palatable? Kind of backfired, if you ask me.
Among all the furor the GST raised, this stands out as a well-reasoned pro-GST post. Andy Mukherjee also explains it in layman'ss terms for Bloomberg. I'm tired of people railing at economics that they don't understand. Personally, I figure life goes on ...
Monday, August 21, 2006
much ado about nothing
I could not help but wonder, as I sat there watching the idiot box with the dog whining and trying to make me walk him, if I was not just wasting my time. About an hour into the National Day Rally speech and I had to ask, "So what's new?" It is a pity I had fallen asleep when they announced the five-day week two years ago. Since then, I have watched two rally speeches in anticipation of some other electrifying announcement that would turn the world on its head, but they have been rather boring, really.
I guess there were two points that stood out more for me in this speech. The first was the issue of foreign talent, and the creation of a new agency withing the PMO to manage this. I think PM's points can be summarised briefly as
1) It is very important to stay in touch with overseas Singaporeans. It is good to go overseas, but please come back. We will set up an agency to manage this.
2) We all know our birth rate cannot support population replacement. I won't bore you with the details.
3) Since our birth rate is too low, the best way to sustain our population is to attract foreign talent.
In the first place, I think perhaps he glossed over the second point a little too quickly. Is it really so hard to increse the birth rate? It seems we are pouring a lot of resources into the whole foreign talent thing, might it not be possible to invest this in subsidising the costs of a third child instead? Every time the issue of birth policies comes up, my mother becomes incensed because she feels the PAP really screwed up on this one. She will tell the story of how she went to the hospital for a checkup when pregnant with the baby sister, and the nurses kindly directed her to the abortion room (obviously a fair assumption since this was the third, and she should stop at two). And she feels that the government should really show some backbone and admit for once that they were wrong in those early years. Instead, they introduce new and unpopular measures to attempt to fix this problem.
Personally, I have no problem with foreign talent. I see this as a problem of the individual welfare versus the welfare of society. And I believe that by picking and choosing the cream of foreign talent, they would certainly contribute to the country more than a few hundred more babies born to random Singaporean parents.
On the other hand, it is likely that with more competition (whether local or foreign), individuals would be less well off. This is the innate fear that leads people to reject the notion of more foreigners. The key differences are that with foreign talent, the culprits are easily identified (as opposed to some faceless statistic on the birthrate) and with foreign talent, people feel the pain immediately because they are competing for jobs now, not 20 years down the road. It is easy to gripe if you are replaced or passed over in favor of some yellow haired dude, but if some other Singaporean gets your job or promotion, how would you know if he might not have existed if not for government birth control policies?
The other thing that PM focussed on was the new media, the internet and blogs. It is quite clear from the time allotted that this has been identified as a key issue that they are taking very seriously. It is unfortunate that after all the talk, I was still not convinced that the action taken against Mr Brown was reasonable and public spirited. And yet I am still very hopeful for our blogging scene, and especially Mr Brown.
I was pleasantly surprised to discover recently that Mr Brown ranks #300 on Technorati. Given our miniscule population (since popularity is based on links), it is really impressive to have one of our own ranking up in the clouds. To me this signals a very active blogging scene, which bodes well for the continuance of civic discourse, whether serious, fallecious or otherwise. Kudos to Mr Brown, and keep up the good work!
I guess there were two points that stood out more for me in this speech. The first was the issue of foreign talent, and the creation of a new agency withing the PMO to manage this. I think PM's points can be summarised briefly as
1) It is very important to stay in touch with overseas Singaporeans. It is good to go overseas, but please come back. We will set up an agency to manage this.
2) We all know our birth rate cannot support population replacement. I won't bore you with the details.
3) Since our birth rate is too low, the best way to sustain our population is to attract foreign talent.
In the first place, I think perhaps he glossed over the second point a little too quickly. Is it really so hard to increse the birth rate? It seems we are pouring a lot of resources into the whole foreign talent thing, might it not be possible to invest this in subsidising the costs of a third child instead? Every time the issue of birth policies comes up, my mother becomes incensed because she feels the PAP really screwed up on this one. She will tell the story of how she went to the hospital for a checkup when pregnant with the baby sister, and the nurses kindly directed her to the abortion room (obviously a fair assumption since this was the third, and she should stop at two). And she feels that the government should really show some backbone and admit for once that they were wrong in those early years. Instead, they introduce new and unpopular measures to attempt to fix this problem.
Personally, I have no problem with foreign talent. I see this as a problem of the individual welfare versus the welfare of society. And I believe that by picking and choosing the cream of foreign talent, they would certainly contribute to the country more than a few hundred more babies born to random Singaporean parents.
On the other hand, it is likely that with more competition (whether local or foreign), individuals would be less well off. This is the innate fear that leads people to reject the notion of more foreigners. The key differences are that with foreign talent, the culprits are easily identified (as opposed to some faceless statistic on the birthrate) and with foreign talent, people feel the pain immediately because they are competing for jobs now, not 20 years down the road. It is easy to gripe if you are replaced or passed over in favor of some yellow haired dude, but if some other Singaporean gets your job or promotion, how would you know if he might not have existed if not for government birth control policies?
The other thing that PM focussed on was the new media, the internet and blogs. It is quite clear from the time allotted that this has been identified as a key issue that they are taking very seriously. It is unfortunate that after all the talk, I was still not convinced that the action taken against Mr Brown was reasonable and public spirited. And yet I am still very hopeful for our blogging scene, and especially Mr Brown.
I was pleasantly surprised to discover recently that Mr Brown ranks #300 on Technorati. Given our miniscule population (since popularity is based on links), it is really impressive to have one of our own ranking up in the clouds. To me this signals a very active blogging scene, which bodes well for the continuance of civic discourse, whether serious, fallecious or otherwise. Kudos to Mr Brown, and keep up the good work!
Sunday, August 06, 2006
quitters
I haven't really been following the debate on emigration closely. I'm sure its more of the same again. In fact, it strikes me as slightly hypocritical that the government should make an issue of this at all. Of course, we don't want to lose our intellectual capital to other countries. But considering that we have very public efforts of our own to attract foreign talent, and that our continued population growth rate is probably not due to the declining birth rate, I'd say what goes around comes around. For years, we have been beneficiaries of the repressive domestic racial policies of our neighbours. Can we in good conscience condemn people for going someplace else?
But on the other hand, is emigration really such a bad thing? In their 2001 aricle Brains Abroad1, Janamitra Devan and Parth S. Tewari made a convincing case that an overseas population is not necessarily a bad thing. For example, “In 1999, 70 percent of China’s $50 billion in foreign direct investment came from Chinese people living abroad”, and “Indians abroad deposited $5.5 billion at the state bank of India”2. Domestic helpers from countries such as the Phillipines and Mexico have made up a large chunk of credit in their countries' current account balance. And in recent news, we also hear how Mittal Steel is returning to invest in India. Another more extreme example are the Jews, who are accused of using their positions of influence in many countries, most notably the United States, to support the reconstitution of the state of Israel and its subsequent actions. These are all examples of people who have contributed to their home countries from abroad.
The decision to leave a country is not a sign of disloyalty. There could be many reasons, which I think KTM has covered quite comprehensively at SingaporeAngle. Bottom line is that if we cannot keep these people physically, we should at least retain their loyalty and goodwill, or all will truly be lost.
1 "Brains Abroad", Janamitra Devan and Parth S. Tewari, The McKinsey Quarterly, Number 4 pp 51-60
2 ibid, pg 54
I think it's a pretty good article, but unfortunately it's not available online due to copyright I suppose. If anyone wants to read it, drop me a comment, I can email to you.
As a really random aside, I thought it was interesting to note that Janamitra Devan is the brother of Jenadas Devan, both sons of Devan Nair. Jenadas Devan has long been my favorite ST columnist, which is the polar opposite from my opinion of Andy Ho. I was once given an article by Jenadas on Japans' deflation for my political economy class. Considering that my Prof is one of the leading Japan experts and a consultant to the Japanese government, that article must have been pretty good to be selected. Which is pretty extraodinary considering that Janadas' area of expertise seems to be English literature.
But on the other hand, is emigration really such a bad thing? In their 2001 aricle Brains Abroad1, Janamitra Devan and Parth S. Tewari made a convincing case that an overseas population is not necessarily a bad thing. For example, “In 1999, 70 percent of China’s $50 billion in foreign direct investment came from Chinese people living abroad”, and “Indians abroad deposited $5.5 billion at the state bank of India”2. Domestic helpers from countries such as the Phillipines and Mexico have made up a large chunk of credit in their countries' current account balance. And in recent news, we also hear how Mittal Steel is returning to invest in India. Another more extreme example are the Jews, who are accused of using their positions of influence in many countries, most notably the United States, to support the reconstitution of the state of Israel and its subsequent actions. These are all examples of people who have contributed to their home countries from abroad.
The decision to leave a country is not a sign of disloyalty. There could be many reasons, which I think KTM has covered quite comprehensively at SingaporeAngle. Bottom line is that if we cannot keep these people physically, we should at least retain their loyalty and goodwill, or all will truly be lost.
1 "Brains Abroad", Janamitra Devan and Parth S. Tewari, The McKinsey Quarterly, Number 4 pp 51-60
2 ibid, pg 54
I think it's a pretty good article, but unfortunately it's not available online due to copyright I suppose. If anyone wants to read it, drop me a comment, I can email to you.
As a really random aside, I thought it was interesting to note that Janamitra Devan is the brother of Jenadas Devan, both sons of Devan Nair. Jenadas Devan has long been my favorite ST columnist, which is the polar opposite from my opinion of Andy Ho. I was once given an article by Jenadas on Japans' deflation for my political economy class. Considering that my Prof is one of the leading Japan experts and a consultant to the Japanese government, that article must have been pretty good to be selected. Which is pretty extraodinary considering that Janadas' area of expertise seems to be English literature.
Sunday, July 30, 2006
the tyranny of public perception
Let's start with the article that first sparked my thoughts on this matter.
And this is on thing I find difficult to reconcile with our modern reality. Oftentimes the most beneficial decision is not the most acceptable decision, because of the way it is perceived. So we may end up taking a sub-optimal solution, because it is more acceptable. This annoys me no end because I am quite an efficiency and optimisation freak. In this case maybe the station controller should never have tried to bring the plane down. Or maybe the captain just shouldn't have opened his big mouth to explain. But now they have an image problem. Just a little nagging doubt in people's minds that maybe CAAS and SIA made a mistake. But of course, no one is really going to bother to find out the real truth and report about it.
I have encountered such situations in my personal work too. Once for an event, the boss canned the reommended proposal, because he said it would not go down well with the public. They would think we spent a lot of money on something excessive, when in reality actually it was a really good deal and not that expensive at all. But he refused to do it because of what people might think. To drive home his point, he gave us the analogy of the minister:
While I think this phenomenon exhibits itself most clearly in public institutions, our little lives are not exempt. Every day, in the decision making process for crafting proposals, I have to divorce myself from the most optimal solution and the consider all the little intricacies of giving face and playing politics. When turning people down, I have to decide if I should just give the straight truth, or find something more tactful, especially to avoid misinterpretations over sensitive issues.
Is it because there is no trust left in this world? Everyone always assumes the worst case or most malicious reasons behind everything, or so it seems. And something in me screams everytime I have to put aside the most efficient and instead apply the most acceptable.
I'm not writing this to condemn my organisation or any others. Rather, I think this is the natural defence mechanism to the structural problems of a flawed society that lacks trusts and openness. That is quicker to criticise than to investigate, and where the media can too easily paint an innocent action into the most controversial light. That is the tyranny of public perception.
SIA plane delays landing at Changi to avoid hitting another planeReading this, I felt sorry for SIA and CAAS. I'm sure that at all times, there was no danger to the plane. The station control was probably 90% sure that the plane on the ground would vacate the runway, and to save everyone half an hour, why not just get the next plane ready to land? The worst case was that he would have to ask the next plane to full up and start again, everyone was no worse off than before, and there was no danger involved. Right? No danger to the passengers, but maybe some danger to their reputations now that someone has decided to squeak to the media about it.
By Tan Hui Leng, TODAY | Posted: 29 July 2006 0016 hrs
SINGAPORE : A Singapore Airlines plane which was about to land had to pull up again and move into a circling pattern in order to avoid hitting another plane on the runway.
The plane then circled for about 15 minutes before making a landing.
The pilot had announced to passengers that the other aircraft "was too close" and he "had to take off again to avoid any incident," recounted one passenger.
An SIA spokesperson said: "When the go-around was initiated, there was ample separation between SQ11 and the other aircraft. And at 500 feet, this procedure can be done safely without compromising safety. This is a normal manoeuvre and pilots are thoroughly trained in the execution of a go-around."
This is just an excerpt, see the full text at CNA. Or TODAY. Or Straits Times.
And this is on thing I find difficult to reconcile with our modern reality. Oftentimes the most beneficial decision is not the most acceptable decision, because of the way it is perceived. So we may end up taking a sub-optimal solution, because it is more acceptable. This annoys me no end because I am quite an efficiency and optimisation freak. In this case maybe the station controller should never have tried to bring the plane down. Or maybe the captain just shouldn't have opened his big mouth to explain. But now they have an image problem. Just a little nagging doubt in people's minds that maybe CAAS and SIA made a mistake. But of course, no one is really going to bother to find out the real truth and report about it.
I have encountered such situations in my personal work too. Once for an event, the boss canned the reommended proposal, because he said it would not go down well with the public. They would think we spent a lot of money on something excessive, when in reality actually it was a really good deal and not that expensive at all. But he refused to do it because of what people might think. To drive home his point, he gave us the analogy of the minister:
Apparently some Singapore minister was outfitting his office with a new carpet. He was given two options: a thin one and a luxurious lush one. They were the same price. He chose the thin one because he didn't want people to get the idea that the government wastes money on unnecessary oppulence. This is just one examples, I have others where more money was spent to project an image of thrift.I thought it was just plain ridiculous. But not for long, because what drove it home for me was the Thaksin-Shin Corp-Temasek saga. It was a perfectly legal deal, which could well have been based on solid business stategy fundamentals. Instead, Thaksin got slimed for evading tax, and Temasek was portrayed as an aggressive foreign takeover. (A Bangkok taxi driver told me that Thaksin avoided the tax perfectly legally, but his opponents mobilised many rallies to denounce him and make it appear that he had lost public support.) In the end, I think Temasek was also pressured to liquidate its holdings at a loss.
While I think this phenomenon exhibits itself most clearly in public institutions, our little lives are not exempt. Every day, in the decision making process for crafting proposals, I have to divorce myself from the most optimal solution and the consider all the little intricacies of giving face and playing politics. When turning people down, I have to decide if I should just give the straight truth, or find something more tactful, especially to avoid misinterpretations over sensitive issues.
Is it because there is no trust left in this world? Everyone always assumes the worst case or most malicious reasons behind everything, or so it seems. And something in me screams everytime I have to put aside the most efficient and instead apply the most acceptable.
I'm not writing this to condemn my organisation or any others. Rather, I think this is the natural defence mechanism to the structural problems of a flawed society that lacks trusts and openness. That is quicker to criticise than to investigate, and where the media can too easily paint an innocent action into the most controversial light. That is the tyranny of public perception.
Wednesday, July 05, 2006
no questions asked
The recent furor over Mr Brown and MICA is just the latest verse in a very old song. But with recent shifts in global trends, the world's beat is clearly changing. Perhaps it is time we start singing to a different tune.
So let's start by talking about NORA. In the post 9/11 era, NORA is one of the systems that U.S. Homeland Security relies on to develop greater synergies between its many agencies. This is especially imporatant since the post-mortem showed that various U.S. agencies had all the pieces of the puzzle, but they failed to put them together. One of the interesting concepts NORA is built on is that questions, even without answers, have a value of their own. In the past, if the CIA asks "Who is Mr Mohd" and no one knows the answer, its significance is lost forever. But now, NORA remembers. And if the FBI later asks "Who is Mr Mohd", NORA will say, "I don't know, but the CIA is asking the same question." Immediately the two agencies can link up and share the information that has led them each to independant suspicions. And if later again, NSA discovers important information on a Mr Mohd, NORA can immediately identify who needs it.
Another emerging trend is the harnessing of the masses. Chris Anderson calls it The Power of Peer Production, Jeff Howe calls it Crowdsourcing (via Legal Janitor). The hottest business model now is to design an ecosystem and then let everyone else do the work of content generation. Then the traffic and the business just flows in. We all know e-Bay, and some m ore recent examples cited are creating a TV show from the hottest videos being shared on the internet, or providing the infrastructure for amateurs (such as amateur photographers) to market their goods, and of course take a hefty cut. In this way, the system is able to tap onto the ideas and resources of the multitude.
So what does this mean to us?
One of the uniquely Singaporean OB markers that was recently bolded and underlined to Mr Brown is the need to accompany criticism with solutions. Otherwise, we are told, we are just creating dissent, which is unconstructive and unpatriotic. But if no one dares to ask the question, how can we collaborate to find the answer? Until someone identifies the problem, how will others start searching for the solution? Just like for NORA, the question is important too. It can spark open discussion so that individuals with different fields of expertise can cross swords (pens, or blogs) and find the most optimal solution.
While Singapore has survived well by nurturing a stable of immensely capable technocrats, we cannot ignore the changes sweeping through technology and business. In this new world model, we have one advantage: we have very good people. So we must find ways to tap them, before we are left behind. And one way to do this is to let me people ask questions and identify problems, even if they have no ready answers.
So let's start by talking about NORA. In the post 9/11 era, NORA is one of the systems that U.S. Homeland Security relies on to develop greater synergies between its many agencies. This is especially imporatant since the post-mortem showed that various U.S. agencies had all the pieces of the puzzle, but they failed to put them together. One of the interesting concepts NORA is built on is that questions, even without answers, have a value of their own. In the past, if the CIA asks "Who is Mr Mohd" and no one knows the answer, its significance is lost forever. But now, NORA remembers. And if the FBI later asks "Who is Mr Mohd", NORA will say, "I don't know, but the CIA is asking the same question." Immediately the two agencies can link up and share the information that has led them each to independant suspicions. And if later again, NSA discovers important information on a Mr Mohd, NORA can immediately identify who needs it.
Another emerging trend is the harnessing of the masses. Chris Anderson calls it The Power of Peer Production, Jeff Howe calls it Crowdsourcing (via Legal Janitor). The hottest business model now is to design an ecosystem and then let everyone else do the work of content generation. Then the traffic and the business just flows in. We all know e-Bay, and some m ore recent examples cited are creating a TV show from the hottest videos being shared on the internet, or providing the infrastructure for amateurs (such as amateur photographers) to market their goods, and of course take a hefty cut. In this way, the system is able to tap onto the ideas and resources of the multitude.
So what does this mean to us?
One of the uniquely Singaporean OB markers that was recently bolded and underlined to Mr Brown is the need to accompany criticism with solutions. Otherwise, we are told, we are just creating dissent, which is unconstructive and unpatriotic. But if no one dares to ask the question, how can we collaborate to find the answer? Until someone identifies the problem, how will others start searching for the solution? Just like for NORA, the question is important too. It can spark open discussion so that individuals with different fields of expertise can cross swords (pens, or blogs) and find the most optimal solution.
While Singapore has survived well by nurturing a stable of immensely capable technocrats, we cannot ignore the changes sweeping through technology and business. In this new world model, we have one advantage: we have very good people. So we must find ways to tap them, before we are left behind. And one way to do this is to let me people ask questions and identify problems, even if they have no ready answers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
