Gerald Giam

Knowledge-based economy needs more Uni education financing

The need to improve access to higher education has taken a much more urgent imperative. This need can be met to a large extent by increased financing for university education for Singaporean students, particularly those in the low-income group.

FINANCE Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam announced in his 2008 Budget Speech that the Government will increase the CDC/CCC-University Bursaries for students from the lowest 20 percent of households from $1,000 to $1,600. This is a step in the right direction.

Unfortunately, the increase is probably not enough to cover the 7 to 20 percent hike in tuition fees recently announced by Singapore’s three publicly-funded universities. Singaporean students will now have to fork out between $6,360 and $18,230 a year for undergraduate courses.

The ever-increasing cost of tertiary education is a cause for worry.

I believe that education is the best socio-economic leveller. One of the most important ways to facilitate social mobility is education, and tertiary education in particular.

The Government has taken pride in its self-proclaimed “meritocratic” system, whereby anyone, whether rich or poor, can climb the social ladder to join the ranks of the elites in society if they achieve excellent grades in school and get awarded scholarships to study in university. However, the success of a country should not be judged solely by the achievements of the elite.

The former president of Japanese multinational Matsushita remarked some years ago to the then-Economic Development Board (EDB) Chairman Ngiam Tong Dow that our educational structure had some brilliant individuals perched like eagles on high peaks, but the average education level of the rest was not high. He advised that Singapore should concentrate on educating the masses to raise the average level and not just focus on the top scholars. He said that to advance as a nation, we need “high broad plateaus, not solitary peaks”.

Singapore already has a very good education system at all levels — primary, secondary, technical and tertiary. However in the present economy, it is tertiary education (i.e. universities and polytechnics) that will make the difference between those who break into the middle-income group and above, and those who will remain in the struggling-to-survive group.

Singapore needs more knowledge workers to power our economy. If companies can’t find these workers locally, they will have to hire foreign talent, as they are already doing. The globalisation train is steaming ahead, and there’s nothing we can do to stop it. Most manufacturing jobs and even technical jobs will be shipped out to China, India or Vietnam sooner than we think. No amount of labour protectionism will save these jobs.

More foreign talent or more education?

To prepare our young for the knowledge-based economy, the Government needs to give as many students as possible the opportunity to study in tertiary institutions.

It doesn’t make sense for the Government to constantly carp at the lack of local knowledge workers and import wave after wave of foreign talent, when it should be putting in place more long-term solutions by providing more opportunities for Singaporeans to complete their tertiary education. Human capital development is an investment with an almost guaranteed return.

In his Budget speech, the Finance Minister pointed out that in centres for innovation like Austin, Texas, over 44 percent of their population hold college degrees. But currently in Singapore, a mere 23 percent of each primary one cohort enters university. The Government plans to increase this to just 30 percent by 2015.

This, in my opinion, is not enough. It is unfortunate that many parents spend fortunes to send their children overseas to study due to lack of places in local universities. I understand that one of the Government’s concerns is that the job market may not be able to support a higher proportion of degree holders, should the economy head south in the future.

The question to ask then is will these Singaporeans be better off if they didn’t have a degree? Probably not. They might still be able to find well-paying jobs overseas with their qualifications, just like many Filipinos do. Not so for the non-degree holders, who will have far fewer career options, whether the economy is doing well or not.

Tertiary education and the lower income group

Students from low-income households often have to overcome numerous odds just to perform well in their studies, let alone finance their tertiary education. For these students, continuing on to tertiary education after secondary school entails not just tuition fees and other school-related expenses (stationery, books, etc). It also presents an opportunity cost. This is because many would be under pressure to start working as soon as possible to contribute to the household income, often to see their younger siblings through school.

Furthermore, the lower value that many poorer parents place on higher education is another factor that might be holding down university enrolment among low-income students. I have a good friend who qualified for junior college after secondary school, but her parents discouraged her from continuing on in JC after the first 3 months because they felt it would be a stretch to pay for her university education. She went to polytechnic instead. (Fortunately she took up a professional degree after she started working.)

This would probably not have happened had her family been wealthy enough to pay for her university education. In fact, all of my peers from high-income backgrounds eventually completed university, even those with average academic ability. Those who didn’t do well enough to enter local institutions completed their studies overseas. Is it fair, then, for someone to miss out on a university education just because her family is not rich?

A report by the Education Policy Institute in Canada titled “Grants for Students” found that grants are an effective way of increasing access to higher education for students from low-income households. The research revealed that grants tip the cost-benefit ratio of higher education in favour of the “benefits” by offsetting tuition costs and foregone income. In other words, a JC student from a low-income family who is deciding whether to spend $20,000 to complete university or start working immediately no longer has to make that decision if he knows that his university education will be covered entirely by grants.

Are current bursaries enough?

The Ministry of Education (MOE) has stated that no student will be denied a university education because of financial difficulties. It claims that all cases of genuine financial need will be met by bursaries.

Unfortunately, bursaries don’t cover all the tuition costs, let alone the other expenses of higher education. The annual tuition fees in local public universities range from $6,360 for arts and engineering, to $18,230 for medicine and dentistry. This includes the MOE tuition grant, which is given to all students, even foreigners. Most bursaries are valued between $800 and $2,000 per year, based on the level of financial need.

One needs to have a gross monthly per capita household income of less than $1,000 to qualify for an $800-a-year MOE bursary. Furthermore, the bursaries usually prohibit students from concurrently holding other bursaries or scholarships. They are also required to re-apply every academic year.

The National University of Singapore’s (NUS) Student Financial Aid Unit states on their website that the financial aid package is a “partnership involving the student, his/her family and the University”. While this co-payment approach sounds reasonable in theory, in reality many students from low-income families still won’t be able to meet the balance of payments even after factoring in the bursaries. Many would still have to fork out several thousand dollars each year for tuition fees, books and other living expenses, even if they receive the maximum amount in bursaries.

Part-time work could make up for some of the shortfall, but the money earned may be needed to supplement family income or support siblings, rather than pay their own tuition expenses. In addition, since bursaries need to be renewed every year, the student has no assurance prior to entering university that his or her expenses will be adequately covered for the duration of the 3 or 4 year course.

A tuition loan may be an alternative, but it does not reduce the net price of education (in fact it increases because of the interest) and it saddles the student with debt even before he or she has begun working.

Therefore, I propose that the bottom 30 percent of households (according to per capita income) should be given full tuition grants and grants to cover other expenses like textbooks and board. The payable fees could be slowly increased from the 31st percentile until the 90th percentile. Students from middle income households should have access to a combination of grants, low-interest loans and “work-study” to cover all their tuition fees and expenses. Those in the top 10th percentile should pay close to full tuition fees.

Financial Assistance for Continuing Education and Training

The Finance Minister has announced that the Government will now provide subsidies for part-time degree programmes at NUS, NTU, SMU and UniSIM. The Government will meet 40 percent of the cost of these programmes. This is an excellent but long overdue measure. Many adults who take up these part-time degree programmes do so because they couldn’t afford to do their degrees after secondary school. They deserve to be given equal access to subsidised tertiary education just like their full-time peers.

Keeping Education Costs Down

According to NUS, 70 percent of their budget goes to paying salaries. In their quest to ascend to the top of the world university rankings, our public universities are paying increasingly large salaries to attract “top-notch” professors to come to Singapore.

I question the value of this strategy.

The rankings of a university are dependent more on the quality and amount of research by its faculty and post-graduate departments than the quality of instruction. This is because many top researchers and professors choose universities for their research opportunities and funding. In this regard, a highly-ranked university may not necessarily be the best in terms of teaching quality, and thus beneficial for those seeking higher education. I once had a physics professor who was a decorated US government scientist but couldn’t teach for nuts!

I wonder if our universities are wooing all these top professors, paying them top dollar and then passing on the cost increases to students, who may not enjoy any significant improvement in the quality of their education.

Conclusion

Many well-to-do Singaporeans would have welcomed the 20 percent income tax rebate and the abolition of Estate Duty. While I personally have no complaint about this, it presents a huge revenue loss for the Government. Couldn’t this money be put to better use by investing in education rather than giving it away to Singaporeans who don’t really need it anyway?

Singapore has done well as a whole in educating our people, earning praise from may quarters. Nevertheless, with increasing competition from India, China and the ASEAN region, the need to improve access to higher education has taken a much more urgent imperative. This need can be met to a large extent by increased financing for university education for Singaporean students, particularly those in the low-income group.

Singaporean students subsidising foreign scholars?

The Straits Times Forum, 20 Feb 08

Help grads who do as well as foreign talent

RECENTLY, I befriended a group of scholars from China studying at my alma mater, Nanyang Technological University (NTU). They were in their late teens and were attending foundation courses in English and maths before starting their undergraduate studies. In their five-year sojourn at NTU, they will be given free lodging and a monthly allowance of $500 each. Needless to say, they do not have to pay for their tuition fees. When they graduate, they must work in Singapore for six years as part of their ‘payback” bond.

A highly conservative calculation of their five-year tenure at NTU suggests that each will cost the Government or NTU some $70,000. That is, $30,000 for their five-year tuition fees, including the charges for their foundation courses, and some $40,000 for hostel accommodation and their monthly stipends. I graduated from NTU five years ago, with a good honours degree.

I was in the top 15 per cent of my cohort – and performed better than some of these scholars. While studying at NTU, I had to work as a pizza delivery boy to earn my allowance. Upon graduation, I had to start paying off a $24,000-student loan.

Why are Singaporeans like me not treated as considerately as such scholars? My study loan took five years to pay off after I started working. The China scholars receive financial support, a free education and start their working lives debt free. Their six-year bond is seen as a contribution to Singapore.

Am I not contributing as much, if not more? Non-scholar Singaporeans are not treated in quite the same way as foreign talent, regardless of how well we perform. The disparity is disheartening.

Don’t Singaporeans like me who have done well deserve some relief? True, local scholarships are available. But not every Singaporean who graduated well, gets one.

Can the NTU or the Education Ministry tell me why graduates like myself don’t deserve some relief or reward for doing as well as, or better than, some of the foreign talent?

Zhou Zhiqiang

I’m glad Zhou has highlighted this unfair situation in Singapore. Singaporean students, as far as I know, never get this type of no-strings-attached full scholarships. The foreign scholars only need to work with some company in Singapore for 6 years. Singapore Government scholars have to work with the government for 6 years.

I just wonder where MOE is going with all this sponsorships of foreign students using taxpayer money. Do they really have so much money to give away in their quest to make Singapore an “education hub”? Is this really making us an education hub?

In Western countries like the US, UK and Australia, the foreign students pay full tuition and effectively subsidise the locals. In fact, education is a big money spinner for their economy. In Singapore, it seems the reverse is true. How unfortunate!

I’ve written a related piece on university education financing on theonlinecitizen.com.

ASEAN has a key role to play in Myanmar crisis

This is an excellently balanced commentary on Myanmar/Burma by the International Crisis Group. Unlike most Western commentaries on Myanmar, it contains none of the sabre-rattling and calls for sanctions which have proven wholly ineffective. At the same time, it takes a different tone from that of ASEAN leaders, who seem content sitting back and saying there’s nothing that they can do about Myanmar because their influence is “limited”.

The only point I disagree with is that China’s influence over the Myanmar generals is limited. From what I understand, China is the number one supplier of arms and trade (a lot of it in the blackmarket) to Myanmar. Without those arms and that economic lifeline, the junta’s hold over the country would be diminished. China wants to curry favour with the Myanmar generals to prevent rival India from gaining more influence over them and threatening their supply lines to the Bay of Bengal.

Speaking of which, the author failed to mention about how India, the world’s largest democracy, can play an influential role in resolving the Myanmar crisis.

But overall a great article.

A Chance for Change in Burma
by John Virgoe, International Crisis Group

10 February 2008
The Boston Globe

Four months after crushing massive street protests, Burma’s generals seem as entrenched as ever. There are few workable options for a way forward. Twenty years of Western sanctions haven’t worked. Neither has 20 years of “constructive engagement” by Burma’s neighbors. It is time to try something else.

A three-tiered approach – with a division of labor between the United Nations, Burma’s neighbors, and the wider international community – holds the best prospect of launching a process of reconciliation and broader reform.

The first tier would build on the work of the UN secretary general’s special envoy, Ibrahim Gambari. He has been able to establish a reasonable relationship with all the key players in Burma and abroad, and it therefore makes sense for him to coordinate the diplomatic efforts. Within Burma, his key role is to focus on political reform and national reconciliation between the government, the democratic opposition under Aung San Suu Kyi, and the ethnic groups. This will require sustained, low-profile mediation efforts. Retaining the confidence of the generals may mean it is sometimes better to leave public denunciations of their human rights record and other failings to others.

The second key tier would be informal regional talks. For years, Burma’s neighbors have taken heat for their defense of Burma, which has seriously damaged ASEAN’s relationship with the West. Now is the time for them to call in their favors with the regime.

Indonesia is particularly well-placed to take a lead. It is keen to show progressive leadership, and it carries weight in the region and in Burma. Its recent transition to democracy, reducing the military’s political role, and its experience with separatist conflict have obvious relevance.

Regional talks on Burma, based on the prospect of its reintegration into the region, should address the need for long-term stability, democratic reforms, and transparent economic policy. Without joining the generals in their paranoia, the participants will need to reassure them that Burma’s stability and territorial integrity are not threatened.

Western nations are generally reluctant to accept that others are sometimes better placed to take a lead. But Burma is such a case. It is possible that the junta might agree to constructive actions with a group consisting of, for example, Indonesia, Vietnam, Thailand, Singapore, and China. It is inconceivable that they would do so if the United States or EU were present.

But the wider international community has a vital role to play too, providing the context for the regional talks and the UN’s mediation efforts. This would mean keeping human rights at the top of the agenda; developing a set of escalating sanctions and incentives to encourage progress and punish recalcitrance by the regime; and monitoring the regional talks to ensure they do not degenerate into an excuse for inaction.

A donors’ forum could help address the urgent problems of hunger, poverty, and disease. It could also start contingency planning for a transition to democracy. The crisis in Burma goes beyond politics. After decades of conflict, institutional failure, and poverty, the country suffers deep social divisions, incompetent and corrupt governance, collapse of the education system, deep-rooted structural poverty and a health crisis of major proportions.

The creation of a donors’ forum would also send a powerful message to Burma that there is an alternative to hostile relations with the outside world.

Finding a way forward is complicated by three persistent misperceptions. The first is that ever tighter sanctions can force change. But the generals are used to ostracism, and they are not going to be forced to give up power. The second is that China holds the key, if only it could be persuaded to exert its influence. China’s influence is important, but it can be exaggerated. China has been as frustrated as anyone with the generals’ resistance to outside persuasion.

The third misperception is that all Burma needs is an end to the junta’s rule. But Burma faces real problems of internal conflict and instability – including conflicts with ethnic secessionists which have raged ever since independence. Military rule has also caused most formal and informal institutions to wither. Even many in the democratic opposition accept that progress will require close cooperation with the army. The junta’s so-called road map to democracy, though wholly inadequate, could be viewed as an initial offer for discussion.

Change will require compromises, and will be slow at best. There is a small window of opportunity to try something new. Burma’s neighbors, backed by the international community, should seize the moment.

John Virgoe is South East Asia project director at the International Crisis Group.

China must be held to account before Olympics

A 13-year old Sudanese child witnessed a rebel soldier being first shot in the arm,
then executed by gunshots to the groin. (Sudan Watch)

Film mogul Steven Spielberg made the most rattling move so far for the Communist Chinese government by pulling out as artistic advisor to the 2008 Beijing Olympics. His objection: Beijing’s complicity in the genocide going on in Darfur, Sudan. This was by no means an unexpected move. He had urged China as far back as April last year to do more to press for change in Darfur.

Spielberg’s announcement came on the same day that nine Nobel Peace Prize laureates — including Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Elie Wiesel and Jody Williams — sent a letter to Chinese President Hu Jintao urging China to uphold Olympic ideals by pressing Sudan to stop atrocities in Darfur.

I fully support Spielberg’s move. The PRC government must be held to account for its human rights abuses not just within its borders, but outside as well. Darfur is just one in a long string of human rights abuses which date back to the founding of the Communist state.

In more than four years of conflict in Sudan’s western region of Darfur, 200,000 people have died and 2.5 million have been driven from their homes. Just last Friday, Sudan’s government attacked three towns in Darfur, forcing about 200,000 people from their homes and leading thousands to flee into neighboring eastern Chad.

Closer to home, we are all aware of the role that China has played in propping up the Myanmar generals who are responsible for killing thousands of their own people and dragging their country down into an economic abyss. Not to mention their jailing of responsible journalists like The Straits Times’ Ching Cheong over trumped up charges, and not even giving him the benefit of an open trial to present his case.

China is trying to use the Olympics to show their world that they have arrived, that they are a superpower to be reckoned with, when their dismal human rights record clearly suggests otherwise.

The world should seize this window of opportunity to highlight China’s contribution to the suffering in the world. I hope that in the coming months, international pressure will be be ramped up on Beijing to force them to relook at their policies. I have no doubt that Ching Cheong’s early release was in part due to the upcoming Olympics. Imagine what more can be achieved if more influential personalities like Steven Spielberg stand up and tell China’s leaders that enough is enough.

Obama praises Singapore’s education system

Senator Barack Obama mentioned Singapore at a Democratic party rally in Maryland sometime back. Thanks to reader “an old friend” who pointed this out to me.

Obama said, “How can it be that we haven’t made preparations to make sure we’re providing math instruction and science instruction for our children that matches countries like Taiwan and Singapore.”

Oops…he called Taiwan a country. Good for him! For one thing it shows that he is at least aware of Asia, a region that the Bush administration has largely ignored (except for North Korea).

Unfortunately some of our leaders do not think as highly of him as he does of us. Speaking at a recent IPS Forum, MM Lee Kuan Yew questioned the wisdom of supporting leaders like Barack Obama. He described Obama as a one-term senator with manifest intelligence and a gift for getting the right pitch.

“But you ask yourself: Is it going to be a safer world with McCain or with Obama?” he wondered aloud.

Maybe MM Lee forgot that he himself had only been MP for four years, and was only 35 years old when he became PM of Singapore.

I respect McCain and would support him if Obama wasn’t in the picture, but experience isn’t everything. In fact, sometimes the wrong experience can be worse than no experience. MM might have to eat his words if Obama really wins in November.

Means testing or comprehensive medical insurance?

Health Minister Khaw Boon Wan has announced that means testing will likely be implemented in restructured hospitals by the end of this year. Although the details of how it is going to be administered have not been confirmed, one fact seems clear: Many middle-income Singaporeans are going to have to foot larger medical bills in the near future.

Low income Singaporeans can probably breath easy as means testing is unlikely to negatively affect them, since the Minister has said that only the top half of income earners who stay in Class B2 or C wards will undergo a means test.

Currently, patients admitted to Class C wards in restructured hospitals enjoy an 80 per cent subsidy on their hospital bill. With the introduction of means testing, many of them may no longer receive that subsidy, or may have to accept a lower subsidy.

The Government’s rationale for introducing means testing is to reduce overcrowding in Class C wards and ensure a sustainable healthcare financing system by providing heavy subsidies to only deserving low income patients.

Having heard the government’s arguments for means testing, many Singaporeans may be questioning whether it is really necessary, and if there are other better ways to contain rising healthcare costs.

Show us the numbers

The means testing concept makes sense in theory: Rich folks ought to be subsidised less than poor folks. Means testing could prevent “cheapo” rich people from consuming taxpayer funded subsidies when they can well afford to pay for their own medical expenses.

However I wonder whether the rate of abuse of the system is really as high as the government makes it out to be. Singaporeans have been presented with the rationale for means testing, but not the numbers to back it up.

The Minister has said that means testing is likely to be administered only for patients in the upper 50^th percentile income bracket. How many patients currently in Class C wards are in the upper income bracket?

The median monthly income for Singaporeans last year was $2,330. That is not very much. Is it fair to consider a sole breadwinner who earns $2,400 a high income earner not entitled to Class B2/C ward subsidies?

Will the cost of planning and administering means testing exceed any savings for the government? These costs could be significant. They could include extra medical social workers to conduct assessments and investigations, new computer systems to manage the data, and time and effort spent by officials to respond to questions and complaints.

Mr Khaw, in fact mentioned that he is considering a graduated reduced subsidy from 80 per cent, point by point down, to 60 per cent for the top 20^th percentile income earners. So after all this debate, we may be looking at just a 20 per cent reduction in subsidies for top income earners.

At the end of the day, the savings from means testing may not even justify implementing the system. It may be more efficient to keep the current system of letting patients decide which ward they want to go to, based on their own assessment of what they can afford.

Medical insurance and Medisave

Since means testing will be targeted at middle income earners, it is important to look into why so many of them would rather stay in Class C wards rather than more comfortable and less crowded B1 or B2 wards. Why do they still have to depend on government subsidies and why can’t their health insurance adequately cover their costs?

Most Singaporeans are insured under MediShield, Singapore’s national insurance scheme. MediShield helps cover the costs of catastrophic illnesses which require long hospital stays and result in crippling medical bills. The premiums for MediShield can be paid using Medisave, the national medical savings scheme. Typically, employees contribute 6.5 to 8.5 per cent of their wages to their Medisave accounts.

Unfortunately, MediShield’s coverage does not cover the entire hospital bill. For patients staying in Class B2 or C wards, an average of 40 per cent of their medical bill must be paid using cash or Medisave. Class A, B1 or private patients can expect to pay even more. Most of this payment is due to deductibles and co-payment. The deductible ranges from $1,000 to $3,000, depending on the ward chosen. Co-insurance will be 10 to 20 per cent of the claimable amount.

This means that for a claimable amount of $8,000, a Class A patient will have to pay a deductible of $3,000 and co-insurance of 10 per cent on the excess of $5,000. Hence, he will have to fork out $3,500 on top of the portion of the medical bill that wasn’t claimable under MediShield. Is it any wonder then that many relatively well-off people choose to be warded in Class C where the base charges are lower?

There are riders offered by private insurance companies to offset the co-payment and deductibles, but the premiums for these riders cannot be paid using Medisave. Consequently, most people do not take them up as it involves having to fork out additional cash.

This results in a vicious cycle of large hospital bills that MediShield doesn’t adequately cover, leading people to try to incur smaller bills by staying in Class C wards and costing taxpayers more.

To help to lessen this problem, the government should allow Medisave to be used to purchase not just MediShield, but also the riders to offset the deductible and perhaps even part of the co-payment. If CPF members are allowed to use Medisave to pay for these riders, surely many more will sign up for them. After all, many of them have more money stashed in their Medisave accounts than in their Ordinary accounts, as the latter is usually used to pay for their HDB mortgage.

This proposal was raised in Parliament by Nominated MP Cham Hui Fong during the budget debate in 2006. The Health Minister’s response then was, “This is not wise and we do not encourage this. That is why we do not allow Medisave to pay for the premiums of such riders, as proposed by NMP Cham Hui Fong. But if Singaporeans want to buy such riders out of their cash savings, I cannot stop them.”

I can imagine what the government’s concerns with this proposal might be: Excessive drawing down of one’s Medisave; over-consumption by patients and over-servicing by hospitals, leading to higher premiums across the board; and people buying unnecessary policies from aggressive insurance agents.

Fears that people will exhaust their Medisave by paying medical insurance premiums don’t make sense when Medisave can already be used make direct payments for huge hospital bills, and even the bills of one’s family members (including parents). These direct payments surely amount to much more than insurance premiums.

The concern that patients will opt to stay in hospitals for longer than necessary won’t apply to the majority of patients. Who in the right mind would want to stay in hospital if they have recovered from their illness? There may be exceptional cases, but these can be dealt with by doctors who have the authority to send patents home after they have recovered, or to step down care in community hospitals. As for over-servicing, surely we should have a little more faith in the integrity and professionalism of our doctors!

Lastly, to lessen the confusion about which rider to purchase, the government could simplify things by opening a tender for private insurers to provide a single, low-cost MediShield rider that people can choose from — much like how MediShield Plus was transferred to a private insurer (NTUC Income) through a competitive tender in 2005.

If most Singaporeans and permanent residents sign up for this proposed MediShield rider, the insurance companies may be able lower their premiums. With a system like this in place, Singaporeans will benefit from low cost and more comprehensive coverage and the government too will spend less on subsidies. Even insurance companies will find something more to cheer about.

Conclusion

Means testing is probably going to be one of the hot button political issues this year, as would any issue that involves the removal of key government subsidies. The Health Minister has got his work cut out for him convincing Singaporeans that it is the right way to go. Less than two years ago, his first attempt to impose it got beaten back during the heat of elections. This time, he will need to present more convincing arguments to an increasingly sceptical populace, or better still, explore a win-win solution by allowing Medisave to be used to pay for more comprehensive health insurance.

This article was written for theonlinecitizen.

Complaints Choir "firing cheap political shots"?

Straits Times Forum, 8 Feb 2008

‘Uniquely Singapore’ does not mean embracing all things uncritically

I FULLY support the decision of the Media Development Authority (MDA) not to grant a licence to organisers of the Complaints Choir Project.

This, despite the views of certain netizens that MDA should have allowed the public performance of this choir, since a version of this performance could be made available on the Internet.

Not all kinds of ‘arts and entertainment’ have artistic value. While it is true that an excessively heavy-handed approach towards censorship may stifle creativity and artistic expression, this does not mean that there should be no censorship or licensing at all.

Censorship has a legitimate purpose. We live in a community and we should be mindful of what may undermine the common good.

The Complaints Choir Project puts forward a version of common grouses in our society. Foreigners are involved in this project.

Lau Ai Ling and Lee Siew Peng, writers of the ST forum letters ‘Complaints choir penalised undeservedly’ (ST, Feb 1) and ‘Why squash singing bird amid renaissance drive?’ (ST, Feb 2) respectively, asserted that MDA’s decision undermines Singapore’s initiatives to become a ‘global’ and ‘renaissance and graciousness’ nation.

This reference to the term ‘cosmopolitan’ is a frequently misused and misunderstood refrain. Totally free ‘arts and entertainment’ does not necessarily advance our society’s interests, nor does it reflect an arts renaissance. Not all forms of expression are of value in terms of communication of ideas or even of artistic value.

‘Art’ is not defined exclusively through its ‘shock quality’; whether it is edifying is also a relevant consideration. Freedom of expression in all societies has limits and, to ascertain these limits, we need to examine the specific content of each expression and ascertain its artistic and social value. Firing cheap political shots in the name of ‘art’ or providing entertainment that titillates does not automatically qualify as creative and worthy ‘art’.

It is prudent to draw a line against certain initiatives involving foreigners who seek to impose their opinions and their own version of morality on our society. These foreigners leverage a small select group of disgruntled individuals who masquerade their grouses as views of the average Singaporean. Contrary to their misrepresentation, their values and opinions are not widely held and remain controversial even in their respective countries. We welcome foreign talent and perspectives only to the extent that our society’s interests are advanced.

Clearly, being ‘Uniquely Singapore’ does not mean embracing all things in an uncritical and unthinking fashion. One hopes that Singaporeans as a cosmopolitan people exposed to a wide range of ideas will preserve the discernment to consider what best serves the good of our society where we live and build our lives.

Christine Ang Cheng Moy (Ms)

Well written Ms Christine Ang! Get ready for an invitation to tea by the PAP!

Come on! Who is being uncritical and unthinking? Has Ms Ang even seen the lyrics of the Complaints Choir’s jingle? They are so benign it makes the police ban on it seem ludicrous.

“…this does not mean that there should be no censorship or licensing at all.”

I don’t think netizens are asking for no censorship at all. To make that assumption to counter criticism of the govt’s decision on the Complaints Choir is to cast a hyperbole.

“Firing cheap political shots in the name of ‘art’…does not automatically qualify as creative and worthy ‘art’.”

Spoken like a true minister in the making! But wait…that kind of accusation is supposed to be used only against opposition politicians, not a group of amateur singers which includes even civil servants.

“Totally free ‘arts and entertainment’ does not necessarily advance our society’s interests, nor does it reflect an arts renaissance. Not all forms of expression are of value in terms of communication of ideas or even of artistic value. It is prudent to draw a line against certain initiatives involving foreigners who seek to impose their opinions and their own version of morality on our society.”

I agree that free-for-all arts is not necessarily in Singapore’s interests — but where it concerns public morality, not in the context of the Complaints Choir, which is political expression. Ms Ang is conflating immoral expression with political expression — a common and convenient line of argument used by the governing elite to justify the continued restrictions protecting themselves from criticism.

Censorship is supposed to protect the weakest members of society (e.g., children), not the strongest (e.g., the political elite).

Prime Taxi still the cheapest cab — until end Feb

I’d just like to make a pitch for Prime Taxis for the benefit of all Singapore commuters.

Not many people (including myself until recently) are aware that Prime Taxi is the only cab company in Singapore that has not raised its prices yet. The flag down fare is still $2.50 compared to $2.80 for all the other companies. Their booking number is 67780808 (booking fee is the same as the rest — $3.50).

Here’s a picture of what Prime Taxi cabs look like:

A Prime Taxi driver recently pointed this out to me: According to LTA rules, although cab drivers are not allowed to pick and choose passengers, passengers are allowed to pick which cab they want to ride in. This means that if you are at the front of a taxi queue, you are not obliged to get into the first cab in front of you. You can choose to get into a Prime Taxi even if it is at the back of the taxi queue.

I haven’t verified this with LTA, but it certainly makes sense. What use would competition be if passengers are not allowed to ride in the cab of their choice?

Unfortunately there are only 200 or so Prime Taxis on the roads and their fares are set to increase by end-February. I think this is really unfortunate and I wish they weren’t following suit. It would have provided some real choice for commuters. It’s just a shame that they didn’t publicize enough that they are the cheapest, resulting in most Singaporeans being unaware of the fact.

Perhaps we can blame the media and the Consumer’s Association (CASE) for not alerting us, although I just found out through a web search that CNA actually did run a report on this. Blogosphere should have also done a better job at highlighting this, instead of pouring all our energy into criticizing the decision of the other cab companies to raise fares.

For this I apologize for the oversight on my part.

Countdown to America’s Super Tuesday

The US elections have on occasion been called the most undemocratic in the world. Less than 130 million Americans choose a leader whose decisions will impact 6.5 billion people around the world for four to 8 years. (In the 2004 elections, only 122 million Americans, or 57 per cent of eligible voters, bothered to cast their vote.)

On Tuesday 5 February, Americans in over 20 US states will go to the polls to nominate their party’s candidate for the Presidential election this November. The result of “Super Tuesday” is likely to reveal who the eventual President will be. With support for the Republicans at a low, it is the Democratic Party candidate who stands the best shot at the White House come November.

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are running neck to neck in the race, with Obama currently trailing just a few percentage points behind the former First Lady, but fast catching up.

As a Singaporean who spent his college years in the US (in Los Angeles) while the Clintons occupied the White House, I am convinced that Obama is the better choice not just for America, but also the world. I see Obama as an inspirational leader who can unite not just America, but also go a long way to bring the world together.

What the world badly needs right now is a United States that can provide not just military leadership, but also moral leadership based on the strength of its ideals of democracy, respect for human rights and the rule of law. These ideals have been badly battered in the last eight years, especially after 9/11, but the world would be worse off without an America that can champion these ideals both in word and deed.

I hope my American friends and readers will begin to fathom the weight of responsibility that rests on your shoulders, and vote on Tuesday for a man who can not only lead America into the future, but also deal with the rest of the world with newfound understanding and respect.

Here’s an editorial from The Los Angeles Times, a major daily in the US, endorsing Barack Obama’s bid for the presidency:

The Los Angeles Times

Editorial

Barack Obama for Democratic nominee

Endorsements for president 2008

February 3, 2008

Democrats preparing to vote in Tuesday’s California primary can mark their ballots with confidence, knowing that either candidate would make a strong nominee and, if elected, a groundbreaking leader and capable president. But just because the ballot features two strong candidates does not mean that it is difficult to choose between them. We urge voters to make the most of this historic moment by choosing the Democrat most focused on steering the nation toward constructive change: We strongly endorse Barack Obama.

The U.S. senator from Illinois distinguishes himself as an inspiring leader who cuts through typical internecine campaign bickering and appeals to Americans long weary of divisive and destructive politics. He electrifies young voters, not because he is young but because he embodies the desire to move to the next chapter of the American story. He brings with him deep knowledge of foreign relations and of this nation’s particular struggles with identity and opportunity. His flair for expression, both in print and on the stump, too easily leads observers to forget that Obama is a man not just of style but of substance. He’s a thoughtful student of the Constitution and an experienced lawmaker in his home state and, for the last three years, in the Senate.

On policy, Obama and his rival Democratic candidate, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, are a hairsbreadth apart. Both vow to pull troops from Iraq. Both are committed to healthcare reform. Both offer candid critiques of the failed George W. Bush presidency, its blustering adventurism, its alienating stance toward other countries and its cavalier disregard for sacred American values such as individual liberty and due process of law.

With two candidates so closely aligned on the issues, we look to their abilities and potential as leaders, and their record of action in service of their stated ideals. Clinton is an accomplished public servant whose election would provide familiarity and, most important, competence in the White House, when for seven years it has been lacking. But experience has value only if it is accompanied by courage and leads to judgment.

Nowhere was that judgment more needed than in 2003, when Congress was called upon to accept or reject the disastrous Iraq invasion. Clinton faced a test and failed, joining the stampede as Congress voted to authorize war. At last week’s debate and in previous such sessions, Clinton blamed Bush for abusing the authority she helped to give him, and she has made much of the fact that Obama was not yet in the Senate and didn’t face the same test. But Obama was in public life, saw the danger of the invasion and the consequences of occupation, and he said so. He was right.

Obama demonstrates as well that he is open-eyed about the terrorist threat posed to the nation, and would not shrink from military action where it is warranted. He does not oppose all wars, he has famously stated, but rather “dumb wars.” He also has the edge in economic policy, less because of particular planks in his platform than because of his understanding that some liberal orthodoxies developed during the last 40 years have been overtaken by history. He offers leadership on education, technology policy and environmental protection unfettered by the positions of previous administrations.

By contrast, Clinton’s return to the White House that she occupied for eight years as first lady would resurrect some of the triumph and argument of that era. Yes, Bill Clinton’s presidency was a period of growth and opportunity, and Democrats are justly nostalgic for it. But it also was a time of withering political fire, as the former president’s recent comments on the campaign trail reminded the nation. Hillary Clinton’s election also would drag into a third decade the post-Reagan political duel between two families, the Bushes and the Clintons. Obama is correct: It is time to turn the page.

An Obama presidency would present, as a distinctly American face, a man of African descent, born in the nation’s youngest state, with a childhood spent partly in Asia, among Muslims. No public relations campaign could do more than Obama’s mere presence in the White House to defuse anti-American passion around the world, nor could any political experience surpass Obama’s life story in preparing a president to understand the American character. His candidacy offers Democrats the best hope of leading America into the future, and gives Californians the opportunity to cast their most exciting and consequential ballot in a generation.

In the language of metaphor, Clinton is an essay, solid and reasoned; Obama is a poem, lyric and filled with possibility. Clinton would be a valuable and competent executive, but Obama matches her in substance and adds something that the nation has been missing far too long — a sense of aspiration.

Bill Gates calls for "creative capitalism" at WEF

Microsoft chairman Bill Gates delivered a groundbreaking speech at the recent World Economic Forum (WEF) about “creative capitalism”. He argued that corporations have the potential to do great things for the poor, but only if they are given the incentive to do so. Here is his full speech and Q&A with Klaus Schwab, the conference organiser. Excerpts of his speech from his website are highlighted below the video.

Pure capitalism not benefiting everyone

The world is getting better, but it’s not getting better fast enough, and it’s not getting better for everyone.

The great advances in the world have often aggravated the inequities in the world. The least needy see the most improvement, and the most needy see the least—in particular the billion people who live on less than a dollar a day.

There are roughly a billion people in the world who don’t get enough food, who don’t have clean drinking water, who don’t have electricity, the things that we take for granted.
Diseases like malaria that kill over a million people a year get far less attention than drugs to help with baldness.

Climate change will have the biggest effect on people who have done the least to cause it.

Why do people benefit in inverse proportion to their need?

Market incentives make that happen.

In a system of pure capitalism, as people’s wealth rises, the financial incentive to serve them rises. As their wealth falls, the financial incentive to serve them falls—until it becomes zero. We have to find a way to make the aspects of capitalism that serve wealthier people serve poorer people as well.

Capitalism harnesses self-interest in helpful and sustainable ways, but only on behalf of those who can pay. Philanthropy and government aid channel our caring for those who can’t pay, but the resources run out before they meet the need. But to provide rapid improvement for the poor we need a system that draws in innovators and businesses in a far better way than we do today.

Recognition as an incentive for corporations

At the same time, profits are not always possible when business tries to serve the very poor. In such cases, there needs to be another market-based incentive—and that incentive is recognition. Recognition enhances a company’s reputation and appeals to customers; above all, it attracts good people to the organization. As such, recognition triggers a market-based reward for good behavior. In markets where profits are not possible, recognition is a proxy; where profits are possible, recognition is an added incentive.

Adam Smith, author of The Wealth of Nations wrote, “How selfish soever man may be supposed, there are evidently some principles in his nature, which interest him in the fortunes of others, and render their happiness necessary to him, though he derives nothing from it, except the pleasure of seeing it.”

Creative capitalism

Creative capitalism takes this interest in the fortunes of others and ties it to our interest in our own fortunes—in ways that help advance both. This hybrid engine of self-interest and concern for others serves a much wider circle of people than can be reached by self-interest or caring alone.

A Dutch company, which holds the rights to a cholera vaccine, retains the rights in the developed world, but shares those rights with manufacturers in developing countries. The result is a cholera vaccine made in Vietnam that costs less than $1 a dose—and that includes delivery and the costs of an immunization campaign. There are a number of industries that can take advantage of this kind of tiered pricing to offer valuable medicine and technology to low-income people.

Role of Governments

The highest-leverage work that government can do is to set policy and disburse funds in ways that create market incentives for business activity that improves the lives of the poor.

Under a law signed by President Bush last year, any drug company that develops a new treatment for a neglected disease like malaria or TB can get priority review from the Food and Drug Administration for another product they’ve made. If you develop a new drug for malaria, your profitable cholesterol-lowering drug could go on the market a year earlier. This priority review could be worth hundreds of millions of dollars.

Connecting the poor with rich word markets

Another approach to creative capitalism is simply to help businesses in the poor world reach markets in the rich world.

A few years ago, I was sitting in a bar here in Davos with Bono. After Asia and most of Europe and Africa had gone to bed, he was on fire, talking about how we could get a percentage of each purchase from civic-minded companies to help change the world. He kept calling people, waking them up, and handing me the phone. His projections were a little enthusiastic at first—but his principle was right. If you give people a chance to associate themselves with a cause they care about—they will pay more, and that premium can make an impact. That was how the RED Campaign was born, here in Davos.

Corporations sharing their brainpower with the poor

I hope corporations will consider dedicating a percentage of your top innovators’ time to issues that could help people left out of the global economy. This kind of contribution is much more powerful than simply giving away cash, or offering your employees time off to volunteer. It is a focused use of what your company does best. It is a great form of creative capitalism, because it takes the brainpower that makes life better for the richest, and dedicates it to improving the lives of everyone else.

When you look on a global basis…at the tough problems of the poorest, a company really should stick to what it knows well. Does it know food, does it know distribution, drugs, media, cell phones? You are developing something that’s lower cost and are true to the identities of that organisation.

On the Gates Foundation’s goals

I’ve set very ambitions goals. Of the 20 diseases that our global health program goes after, for over half of them we could make a very significant impact. Reduction in the mortality rates in developing countries has an effect of reducing population growth, which then makes other things like education and nutrition a lot easier.

I think these are great ideas that we should try to push for in Singapore. There is little doubt that our country is marching forward towards capitalism, with lower income tax, more regressive taxes like the GST and now means testing. We will no longer be able to rely on just the government to foot the social bill. This makes it all the more important for corporations and wealthy individuals (and there are a lot of them in Singapore) to do their part to uplift those in our society who have been left behind by globalisation and economic progress.