Wednesday, June 18, 2025
25.7 C
Singapore
type here...
Subscribe
Home Blog Page 5305

Where are the engineers?

By
The Independent
-
0
Engineers in a factory

By Robin Low
Many agree that before we can become a start-up hub, we must first become an engineering hub. Singapore must reach a stage where companies like Apple, Facebook and Google open development centres here instead of just sales offices. No tech startup can happen without the right people.

Even with the increasing number of craft events and HackerCamps happening in Singapore, many companies still claim there aren’t enough good engineers here. However, NUS produces about 1,500 engineers a year. This does not include computing graduates. If the education system produces enough engineers, then where are they going?

Engineers in Singapore always like to say there is no future in engineering. I contacted several of my engineering classmates to find out why.

The top graduates went on to high-paying jobs in finance. Others became public servants. With limited job opportunities for engineers, this is not surprising.

Afterwards, those engineers who did find local engineering jobs, went on to advanced degrees. Most got MBAs, becoming managers and project managers. I do have several friends who got their MEng. However, they still opted for a more managerial position. On receiving PhDs, they then left industry to become academics.

My peers in the US however, fared differently. Of eight who joined Intel, all of them are still working there, even after getting their post-graduate degrees. They said they had challenging work in research and design, and were well paid. All were making 3 times more than their starting pay, and had flexibility working hours.

In Singapore, an engineer’s work is more like maintenance. Hours are long, even after years of service. Salary rarely exceeds twice their starting pay. However, when leaving engineering, their compensation can be on par with their counterparts in the various fields. When they become managers, their salaries are about 3 times their initial salary.

Sometimes it is not the company’s fault, as many average Singaporeans underperform in their knowledge role compared to their paper credentials. In particular, when compared to similarly-qualified engineers from other developed countries, the average Singaporean is: less willing to challenge convention or question authority; more afraid to take risks and move out of the comfort zone; and more likely to display a silo mentality with poor cross-collaboration skills.

Average Singaporeans can thus appear more concerned with guarding and nurturing their own turf rather than being adventurous and exploring other opportunities. In short, Singaporeans’ risk aversion and inability to move out of their comfort zones can translate into professional inflexibility and a lack of ambition—which, again, may seem better suited to “entry level engineering” than “innovative work”.

Singaporeans are academically brilliant and they have a high respect for authority. A similar team in the US would keep questioning and want to have a healthy dialogue every step of the way. This is good for “maintenance works” in engineering, hence the industries which “do not need innovation” thrive.

When the demand for project managers exceeds that of engineers, something isn’t quite right. When an engineer’s innovation is not considered as important as a manager’s, something is wrong. Technical skills are not being valued by the business community. The largest number of job vacancies in Singapore is in engineering, but the compensation is not sufficient to attract and retain the exceptional ones.

As there is a big demand for talented engineers overseas, an experienced engineer from Singapore could get a higher salary even in China. There is no reason why good engineers should stay in Singapore. Until the engineering industry and the business community can appreciate and reward good engineers fairly, there will always be a brain drain – either out of Singapore or to other industries.

There is no lack of good engineers in Singapore, just a lack of challenging jobs or jobs that compensate good engineers well enough for them to stay.

Robin Low is a young Singaporean living in Boston. He is the founder of a nanotechnology company in the US.

Executive condo or BTO flat: Some painful differences

By
The Independent
-
0
MRT train passing by executive condominiums

By Ryan Ong
MRT train passing by executive condominiumsWhy does everyone assume you’re rich if you buy an EC? That doesn’t make sense. By the time you make the down payment and cover the instalments, the EC means you’re pretty much the opposite of rich. Here’s a run-down on the painful differences, when you choose an EC over a BTO flat:
 Why executive condominiums are different
Executive Condominiums (ECs) are another class of “sandwich” flats, like maisonettes or DBSS flats. They cater to a higher class of poor people: those who can afford better than public housing, but still can’t afford private property. And it would appear that this number is not an insignificant number, with nearly 2,500 units sold as at August this year.
Unlike BTO flats, ECs are built by private developers. They are built by the same companies that put up “real” condominiums, with vast expertise in architecture, lifestyle accommodation, and pretentious French words. And while ECs begin as subsidised housing, they all turn into private housing after 10 years.
This results in four main differences, compared to BTO flats:

  • No HDB Concessionary Loan
  • Resale Rules from the 11th Year Onward
  • Fewer ECs are in Mature Estates
  • Less Predictable Resale Value

1. No HDB concessionary loan
If you buy an EC, you need to use a bank loan.  A private bank loan only covers 80% of the valuation. Of the remaining 20%, up to 15% can come from grants and your CPF. That means ECs have an absolute minimum of 5% down payment in cash.
For a BTO flat, you have the option of a HDB concessionary loan. That’s why buyers of a BTO flats don’t have to give down payments.
2. Resale Rules from the 11th year onward
This is where ECs differ the most value as compared to BTO flats.
From their sixth to 10th years, ECs are sold like regular resale flats; only Singaporeans and Permanent Residents (PRs) can buy them. But from the 11th year, ECs go “fully private”. They can then be sold to foreigners and companies. This is a big deal, because it opens up the range of prospective buyers.
The downside is that, when buying resale ECs after the 11th year, buyers can no longer get housing grants for them. They are well and truly private property by then.
According to Kenneth Kok, who invests in properties in Singapore and Malaysia, this “can make a big difference in resale value.”
“Under the new rules, PRs have to wait three years before they can buy a resale flat”, Kenneth says, “But after 11 years, your EC is private property, so PRs can buy without waiting.”
Kenneth adds that the eligibility of foreign buyers also helps:
“In general, a bigger pool of prospective buyers bodes well for capital gains. If you are selling a resale flat, you have no chance of tapping into foreign demand for local properties.”

3. Fewer ECs are in mature estates

Maybe the builders assumed that, if you can afford an EC, you can afford a car. Whatever the reason, many ECs are located in places where you’d expect to see pack mules or a passing jungle expedition.
“A lot of ECs are not in mature estates,” cautions Charlie Sng, a local landlord, “they tend to be in places like Punggol or Woodlands. In 11 years, maybe those places will be more developed. But for now, you should consider the convenience issues of staying there.”
Charlie suggests you consult the Urban Redevelopment Authority’s (URA) Master Plan, if you’re worried about resale value.
“If  it’s about comfortable living,” he adds, “don’t just think about barbeque pits and condo clubhouses. Those will be small consolation, when you need to choose between buying a car or a one-hour commute to work.”

4. Less predictable resale value

This is where the debate starts. ECs are new as a property type, so there’s a lot of argument about their resale value. The main question is this one:
Will ECs sell for the same value as private condos?
There are two opposing camps on this. Kenneth feels that “There is no reason why they will not… ECs are built by private developers; they have the same amenities and same quality of finishing. That they are subsidised at the start is completely irrelevant. Why will this matter to future buyers?”
Charlie, however, thinks there is a psychological barrier to EC prices.
“Based on the mindset of the market, I don’t think it will be easy to sell an EC as if it were a real condo,” he says, “The fact is, the thinking of most Singaporeans is that ECs are one level ‘below’ condos. They may not be able to accept that they have to buy ECs at the same price as real private property.”
Regardless, both investors agreed that the market is too new; we’ll have to wait for a few years, and see what happens when all the ECs start hitting the open market. Also, both Charlie and Kenneth agreed that most ECs will appreciate better than their BTO counterparts.
“An EC is bought at a subsidised price, but sold like a condo,” Charlie says, “and they can be sold on the open market, where PRs don’t have to wait and foreigners are eligible to buy. How not to win in capital gains?”
Ryan Ong is the editor of MoneySmart,sg
Source: http://www.moneysmart.sg

Singapore Day in Sydney, attended by DPM Teo, slammed for ban on whites

By
The Independent
-
0
Singapore Day Sydney 2013

Singapore Day Sydney 2013Singapore Day organizers in Sydney were accused of racism after Caucasians were allegedly barred from the event attended by Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean on Saturday.
The event held at the Domain adjoining the Royal Botanic Gardens was organized by the Overseas Singaporean Unit (OSU), a directorate under the National Population and Talent Division of the Prime Minister’s Office.
About 6,200 Singaporeans showed up for the event where hawkers were flown in from Singapore, reported Channel NewsAsia.
Singapore Day is for Singaporeans only,  said the official I♥Sg website. “Singapore Day aims to bring a slice of home to Singaporeans abroad so as to emotionally connect them back to Singapore,” it added. DPM Teo urged those present to stay connected to Singapore.
[fvplayer src=”http://youtube.com/watch?v=QG4LAx8U4q8″]
Anthony Sim, who attended the event, said it was heart-warming to see such a large gathering of Singaporeans and added, “ There were no PRCs, India Indians, Bangla or Pinoys to annoy us.”
“Driving home, I was struck by guilt,” wrote Sim. “The Singapore government must have put a lot of thought and spent a huge amount to organize this event. And overseas Singaporeans do not pay tax nor contribute to its local economy, so why are we deserving of such a generous gesture that would have never been given when we were living in Singapore?”

 

 
“Irate people phoned radio station 2GB talkback host Ben Fordham to complain that white people had been turned away in droves,” reported The Telegraph.
Royal Botanic Gardens acting executive director Brett Summerell said the event had created concern and he would consider whether it would be appropriate for the park to have any further association with the event organizers.
“My understanding was it was a private event and they paid a fee to hire out the area,” he said.
“We had initial concerns over people not being let in but they had told us only people would only be turned away if it reached full capacity or they didn’t pre-register online.”
“Obviously it has created a bit of community concern and that is enough for me to review it and see if it’s appropriate for the Botanic Gardens to be involved with them in the future,” he said.
A man who identified himself as “James” told the radio station 2GB that he and his father were turned away because they were not Singaporean, reported ninemsn.
In conversation with host Ben Fordham, James said he went with his father hoping to enjoy some “authentic Singaporean food” but were not allowed to attend the event.
“We were just stunned and angry that this had happened to us in a public space in the middle of Sydney,” James told 2GB.
If it was a private event, it should have been held in a hotel and not in a public park funded with taxpayers’ money, he said.

We screwed up in Japan, says Tony Fernandes

By
The Independent
-
0
Tony Fernandes

Tony FernandesAirAsia founder Tony Fernandes (pic) admits that the low-cost carrier failed in its ventures in Japan and Europe.
“Japan was a disaster. Our partner didn’t understand what we wanted,” said Fernandes at the Global Entrepreneurship Summit 2013 in Kuala Lumpur today.
AirAsia parted ways with Japan’s All Nippon Airways (ANA) when it sold its 49% stake in AirAsia Japan to ANA in June this year.
Both airlines had clashed over management and operational differences followed by losses amounting to ¥3.5 billion (RM113 million).
Fernandes, 49, has publicly said that he wants AirAsia to re-enter the Japanese market and is on the lookout for financial partners.
“We’ve just got to look for the right one this time because we screwed up the last time,” he added.
He also spoke on the airline’s failed routes in Europe, citing multiple factors for the axing of the carrier’s European routes in March 2012.
“We pulled out of London because we had the wrong aircraft, the A340. The price of oil was US$80 (RM254) at the time. Then it went up to US$130 (RM413). With a four-engine aircraft, it was just not feasible,” Fernandes said, adding that the UK government’s green tax is “discriminatory against ultra-long-haul airlines”.
But Fernandes is keen to revive AirAsia’s previously axed routes, specifically to London.
“We’ve got to be in Europe. There’s a huge demand for London,” he said.
He said in June this year that the company was looking into commencing its flights to Europe once it receives its Airbus A350 aircraft, which are expected to be delivered beyond 2017 — a timeline that Fernandes says may be too late for the carrier to re-enter the European market.
“We may change the seating configuration and have business class, but we do have to fly to London,” he added.
He also rubbished rumours that low-cost carrier Malindo Air poses a threat to AirAsia, saying: “I have zero interest in Malindo… our competition is ourselves.”
Malindo is a new joint-venture between Lion Air, Indonesia’s low-cost carrier, and Malaysia’s National Aerospace and Defence Industries (NADI). The airline started operating in March this year.
From The Malaysian Insider
 

Gambling: The plus and minus

By
The Independent
-
0
Marina Bay Sands

By Gaurav Sharma
Marina Bay SandsWhen Resorts World at Sentosa (RWS) and Marina Bay Sands (MBS) first opened their doors in 2010, Singapore Citizens and Permanent Residents (SCPRs) made an average of 20,000 visits to the casinos daily. But last year, this figure declined to 17,000, which is likely due to the novelty factor wearing off and other safeguards such as entry levies, exclusion orders and visit limits. Richard Magnus, chairman of the Casino Regulatory Authority of Singapore (CRAS), noted this in CRAS annual report 2012-13.
“Casino entry levies collected in 2012 was about S$174 million. Since 2010, the annual and day levy purchases have, on average, dropped by 20% and 8% yearly respectively,” he added.

Such a decline in local patronage is well-anticipated and much-welcome. Analysts have long argued that major revenue growth for the two casinos in Singapore would be overseas visitors from India, China, Asia-pacific, and the neighbouring ASEAN. And that has been the case.
Singapore has raced on to become the world’s second-most lucrative casino destination, behind Macau, and if a recent Citigroup report is to be believed, the gambling revenues could rise up to US$7 billion in 2014.
This may prove to be a much needed relief for the tourism sector, which is reeling under pressure from a changing landscape. The Monetary Authority of Singapore in its just released figures for the second quarter has registered a decline in tourism-related activities. Air passenger arrivals declined by 0.4% quarter-on-quarter seasonally- adjusted annualised rate in this period, largely due to fewer tourists from China and the EU. Consequently, demand for accommodation services also moderated slightly, with hotel occupancy rates dipping to 86.3%.
Local patronage
Even though the number of locals visiting the casinos is declining, how much these casinos are contributing to “problem gambling” is still debatable.
Lim Hock San, chairman of the National Council on Problem Gambling (NCPG) while speaking at the Singapore Problem Gambling Conference 2012, noted, “This year’s event is the first problem gambling conference held after the opening of the casinos in 2010. The two earlier conferences focused on garnering public awareness of problem gambling and nurturing responsible gambling practices by operators. In short, strengthening gamblers’ resolve to cope with the changing gambling landscape in Singapore.”
Also, last year, NCPG announced the findings of its Gambling Prevalence Survey 2011, which noted the startling results that “47 percent of Singapore residents aged 18 and above reported that they have participated in at least one form of gambling activity in the last 12 months”. It also indicated that the “probable pathological gamblers” and “probable problem gamblers” rates among Singapore residents is 1.4% and 1.2% respectively.
The survey classified anyone who had participated in at least one form of gambling in the last 12 months as “gamblers”.
The survey found that the most popular types of gambling activities were 4D (38%), Toto (28%), Singapore Sweep (16%) and social gambling (13%). Interestingly, jackpot machines and table games in the local casinos (IRs) had gambling participation rates of 3 and 4 percent respectively.
More worryingly, the local casinos scored heavily in terms of poor self-control among gamblers. While playing table games in IRs, 26.5% gambled for a longer period of time than planned, 23.5% gambled more money than planned, and 21.3% gambled more frequently than planned. These figures were 19.1%, 14.4% and 10.1% for jackpot machines in IRs.
Chan Chun Sing, Minister for Community Development, youth and sports, who also spoke at the NCPG conference highlighted the worrying trends in the survey adding, “Emerging concerns include heavier gambling among a small group of low-income gamblers, frequent gamblers, as well as poorer self-control among online, horse racing and casino gamblers.”
Self-control in gambling
From Newzzit

Was the axing of Socceroos' coach justified?

By
The Independent
-
0
Holger Osieck

By P. Francis
Holger OsieckSacking a national team football coach, who has qualified the country for a World Cup, is rarely – if ever – heard of! I dare say Singapore would not have done that, nor Malaysia, Indonesia and even India or China. They would have feted the foreign coach and given him the key to the capital and called him a national treasure – even have his face on a special postage stamp issue!
But the opposite has happened with the Football Federation of Australia (FFA). The Qantas Socceroos coach Holger Osieck, who has qualified the country through the Asian zone for the 2014 World Cup in Brazil, was unceremoniously sacked by Chief Executive Officer David Gallop after the team lost to France 6-0 in a friendly in Paris last Saturday. Yes, a month earlier they had lost to Brazil on their Independence Day in front of a home crowd in Brasilia in another friendly.
[fvplayer src=”http://youtube.com/watch?v=fruxqjC3VaM”]
Australia will host the 2015 Asian Cup on home soil and Osieck took the Socceroos to the previous final, where they were unfortunate to lose to Japan by 1-0 in extra time.
Make no mistake about it, I have never been a fan of Osieck – but have always been a strong fan of the Socceroos. Nor am I a believer in the horoscope, but somehow – being a Libran – I favour the scales of justice and as a journalist I think the axe may have fallen a little unjustly.
The sacking seems planned as Gallop ‘executed’ Osieck minutes after the final whistle.  Was the coach hard done by the FFA? With a contract in place, the FFA will have to pay out the coach and, perhaps, a sizeable sum for early termination to prevent him possibly suing them for wrongful dismissal. It has been reported that the German will receive a severance pay of more than AUD$1 million.
FFA Chairman Frank Lowy said the long-term interests of Australian football justified the change: “The decision is based on the longer term issues of the rejuvenation of the Socceroos team and the preparations for the World Cup and the Asian Cup. FFA has set a strategic objective of having a highly competitive team in Brazil and then handing over a team capable of winning the Asian Cup on home soil in January 2015. We have come to the conclusion that change is necessary to meet those objectives. I thank Holger for his contribution to Australian football and wish him well in his future endeavours.” Sounds like a familiar ending in a testimonial!
Of course, the FFA wants to safeguard the lucrative image of the Socceroos brand – a winning formula for advertising, sponsorship and TV deals.
Meanwhile, Gallop announced that assistant coach Aurelio Vidmar will be in charge as caretaker Head Coach of the Socceroos. “I have given our new Head of National Performance Luke Casserly and the National Technical Director Han Berger the task of conducting a review of our World Cup planning. The review will include all aspects of the technical and logistical preparations, national teams unit staffing and the appointment of a new Head Coach. The World Cup kicks off in eight months and the Asian Cup is 15 months away. We are determined to make the most of the historical opportunities that these tournaments present to Australian football. FFA will give the highest priority to these projects because the Socceroos are the standard bearers for Australia on the world stage. “
Was the writing on the wall after the loss to Brazil? Maybe, but many fans have been calling for Osieck’s head on the blog at the home of the world game in Australia – Special Broadcasting Corporation’s (SBS) website. The local sports media, especially from SBS and Foxtel have been spearheading a move to unseat Osieck. Among those who played hardball – and maybe played the man, too – with Osieck are Les Murray, known as Mr Football at SBS; former Socceroo Craig Foster, the chief football analyst at SBS (played for Singapore Lions in 1991); and ex-Socceroos Mark Bosnich and Robbie Slater at Foxtel. A common thread running through the three ex-Socceroos is that they never qualified for a WC in their time!
Yes, Osieck has made some poor choices in selection. In my opinion, he may have qualified the team earlier had he used striker Josh Kennedy (dubbed ‘Jesus’ and feared by Japan) in the home and away ties against the Japanese. He did not, despite the dearth of real and consistent strikers in the Aussie squad. Kennedy came on late against Iraq to score the winner with a well-placed header after only five minutes on the pitch! Literally, he saved the bacon for Osieck and Australia.
Gallop’s background is in the National Rugby League (NRL), where they did not have more than 140 countries jostling in pre-World Cup qualifiers to enter the next round before dreaming of a WC berth. His predecessor, Ben Buckley came from AFL (Australian Football League – a domestic footy game where you may hold the ball above ground with your hands and kick it towards rugby-style posts without a goalkeeper). Pehaps the time is ripe for a CEO with a real knowledge of football, even if not an ex-Socceroo, someone with vision, desire and football connections to advance the sport in and outside Australia.
Left in disarray after Saturday’s match, the Socceroos will have to regroup and hold their heads up when they face Canada. Their morale will be affected, but a hattrick of losses would be very hard to swallow.
So why are friendly matches organised with double or more than the normal substitutes allowed? Since when do friendly matches, which are used for experimenting by both sides, decide a coach’s fate? Osieck was caught between the devil and the deep blue sea when on one hand the FFA wanted a good result and on the other the vociferous fans wanted the “youngsters to be blooded against stronger opposition”. Obviously, you cannot have the cake and eat it.
Which fool chose two top football nations – Brazil and France – to test the team against? Will the FFA be bold enough to say who was the smart aleck in their organisation arranging these friendly matches with  the in-form Brazil ranked 8th, a red-hot France (25) yet to qualify and Canada (106) against Australia (53)? Of course, the FIFA world rankings are not perfect, but you do not have to be a mathematician to work out the imbalance between the European teams and Australia. But will any FFA heads roll for the mismatches?
Alternative teams ranked around the Socceroos, which would have been more realistic sparring partners include Turkey (49), Egypt (50), Burkina Faso (51) and Cameroon (61). Or maybe teams a little higher up the ladder, such as Venezuela and Nigeria (36), Paraguay (41) and Austria (47).
The ‘Golden Generation’ Socceroos of 2006 and then 2010 had the advantage of many players at the elite level in the English Premier League (EPL), Dutch Eredivisie and Italian Serie A among others. The 2006 first team were household names and there were at least nine in the EPL: Mark Viduka (Newcastle), Harry Kewell (Liverpool), Lucas Neill (Blackburn), Mark Schwarzer (Middlesbrough), Brett Emerton (Blackburn), Tim Cahill (Everton), Craig Moore (Newcastle), Stan Lazaridis (Birmingham) and Josip Skoko (Wigan). Add to that John Aloisi, Scott Chipperfield, Archie Thompson, Mark Bresciano and Zelko Kalac.
Today, Crystal Palace’s Mile Jedinak, Schwarzer (Chelsea), Chris Herd (Aston Villa), Rhys Williams (Middlesbrough) whose mother is from Mumbai, and Brad Jones (Liverpool) are the only notable Aussies in the EPL with limited game time. The others play in Asia and Australia.
It is very easy for armchair critics to discriminate and say that the senior players are ‘too old’. Goalkeeper Schwarzer is 41, Cahill (33) and captain Neill (35).  However, some knowledgeable fans believe that the wannabe Socceroos have to earn the right to play in the national team and not be gifted a spot. They need to be mature and experienced enough to play the highest level and not be intimidated by the big guns before cementing a spot and replacing the seniors.
Who will take over from Osieck? Among the foreign coaches, the names being tossed around – without consideration of salary and their willingness to live Down Under – are former Socceroos coach Dutch master Guus Hiddinck, who owes it to Cahill’s two goals and a late one from Aloisi in an unforgettable comeback against Japan when trailing 1-0 in Kaiserlautern. Will it be back to the future? Hiddinck has delayed his decision until the end of the month, whether to coach the Socceroos. Would he risk his ‘reputation’ for this squad? I doubt it.
Former Dutch coach Pim Verbeek, who succeeded Hiddinck at the helm of the Socceroos, has been regularly criticised by the media and fans for his defensive tactics. But he was effective and qualified the national team for the 2010 WC within an hour of Japan doing so. Verbeek is coaching the Morocco Under-23s and is unlikely to be considered nor will he apply for the job. Two other names touted by fans are Argentine Marcelo Bielsa and former France and Liverpool manager Gerard Houllier.  FFA’s Gallop has indicated they want a new coach to continue from now through the 2014 WC, to the 2015 Asian Cup and the 2018 WC. Tall order or not, that will take some convincing in the form of a job guarantee even if results are bleak.
Local coaches being nominated by the fans include the HAL’s (Hyundai A League) top coaches Ange Postecoglu of Melbourne Victory; Graham Arnold (Central Coast Mariners), who has been assistant coach at NT level; and Popovich (Western Sydney Wanderers) who excelled in their inaugural year. Former Socceroos coach Frank Farina (Sydney FC) has declared he does not want to be considered – he was replaced by Hiddinck for the 2006 WC.
Although another former Socceroo, Ned Zelic, spoke out openly on SBS after the sacking and asked why Osieck had rated the Middle East leagues poorly, but took no firm action to exclude players plying their trade for lucrative petro dollars, it needs to be looked at in perspective. The difference between coaching a national team and a club team is that you cannot buy or trade star players as is done at club level. You inherit the squad, chop a few and add some promising players into the mix – you have to work within that pool of players, unlike the clubs. Australia, too, has struggled in the WC qualifiers against ‘desert’ teams with the current squad. Arab clubs also have talented foreign players from South America, who – as a bright fan said – had a football waiting for them outside their mother’s womb! So the strength of Arab clubs cannot be sneered at.
The Socceroos face Canada in a friendly match on Tuesday, 15 October under caretaker coach Vidmar – a former Socceroo himself – at Craven Cottage, Fulham in London. Vidmar blossomed as the coach of Adelaide United, especially in their impressive outings in the Asian Champions League. What if the Socceroos turn the tables and score a resounding victory against Canada? Would it be because of Vidmar or any change in the line-up? Even the much lower ranking of the opponents may be queried. Or will it show that, perhaps, the FFA’s action had been offside and a knee-jerk reaction with eight months to go before the glittering WC Finals? Time will tell. I shall not speculate on their losing to Canada!
What is clear is that whether the new coach is a foreigner or not, the team he inherits and chops, blends or mixes, will lack the ingredients and flavour when served up to whet the appetite of the fans, who love to compare today’s squad to the ‘Golden Generation’.
P. Francis is an English tutor in Melbourne, who has more than 20 years’ journalism experience with newspapers, books and magazines in Singapore and Australia.
 

Ngiam: Robust cabinet strikes back

By
The Independent
-
0

By Tan Bah Bah

ICYMI: An exchange with the late Mr Ngiam and PM Lee shows the extend of the rift in the civil service and how things are going to be in the future. But then, is our current bunch of civil servants just to civil to challenge our political masters?  Read this 2013 article by Tan Bah Bah. 

“Wrong impression”, “illogical”, “not fair” , “spoken without realising” – these were the phrases Ngiam Tong Dow used to describe his comments in an interview on current government ministers and policies.

The sudden public backtracking by the former Civil Service head in response to reactions from quarters not exactly identified must have dismayed quite a number of admirers. They see in him an important inside track espouser of alternative views on government policies and directions.

Hitherto, they also regard Ngiam as an establishment figure, part and parcel of a brilliant pioneer team of leaders – political and civil service – behind Singapore’s economic success. There has been no official frowning on his previous observations (that we know of, anyway) – till now. He has, in the past, called the government elitist in its outlook and criticised its obsession with making Singapore a First World country.

Because of his impeccable background, he seemed untouchable. He is, after all, an Adjunct Professor in the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy.

What he said in an interview with the editor of Singapore Medical Association News has been widely reported. We need not go into the details here. Among other things, Ngiam, in his retraction statement, said it was unfair of him to describe today’s ministers as elitist and imply they did not speak up at cabinet meetings because they were worried about losing their high salaries. It has been pointed out to him that several ministers came from humble backgrounds and quite a few could command higher salaries in the private sector and were not afraid to speak up at cabinet meetings.

Ngiam said: “I have been told by civil servant colleagues that cabinet discussions are robust – as robust as they were when I attended cabinet meetings as PS (PMO), when Mr Goh Chok Tong was PM, and Mr Lee Hsien Loong DPM.”
Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong has welcomed his clarifications, “especially his comments about my ministers”.

On surface, the two sets of statements – retraction and the PMO reaction – seemed to have settled the issue. Ngiam said his piece, was told he was wrong and he took it back. End of episode. Not quite. Ngiam’s retraction raises several points.

It seems improbable that the ex-top civil servant could be so well off the mark about the robustness or lack of in most cabinet meetings, in the earlier years and now. Perhaps he was truly unaware, so carried away as he was during his interview. But most observers would interpret his clarifications as more likely made under pressure. Did someone throw an OB marker at him? OB markers are said to be “out of bounds markers” to denote what topics are permissible for public discussion.

The PM said: “I hope that in retirement he will continue to support the institutions and systems that he helped build during his long and illustrious career.” Will Ngiam now be less vocal? Worse, will he now disappear quietly into the golden sunset?

Let us hope not.

People like Ngiam and civil service leaders of his generation (and the one immediately after) should be listened to. They have a collective wealth of experience which should be fully tapped. They are practically NGOs, each a custodian of history and a resource to help younger Singaporeans look at problems beyond their own often limited perspectives and what they learn in classrooms and textbooks.

These early civil service stars offer useful alternative views and are a bridge between the pioneer and current generations. They fill an important gap in the telling of the Singapore story which has so far been rather monophonic.

Apart from Ngiam, Prof Lim Chong Yah reappeared in public last year to call for a shock therapy to lessen the wage gap. The former chairman of the National Wages Council urged the raising of salaries of low-income workers over three years while imposing a moratorium on the country’s highest wages during the same time. That set off a very lively discussion and refocused the country’s attention on the need to help low-income workers.

A really new normal should be one where our best talents from the past will come forward unhindered to share their views with others. A better informed public is the most precious legacy which people like Ngiam, Lim, Philip Yeo and J Y Pillay can leave for future Singaporeans, governments included.

Tan Bah Bah is a retired journalist. He was a senior leader writer/columnist with The Straits Times and managing editor of a  local magazine company.

Singapore seen through different lenses

By
The Independent
-
0

By Abhijit Nag

MerlionImagine going to heaven and hearing grave disquiet: rumblings of dissatisfaction about declining living conditions, protesters holding placards proclaiming, “Life is hell in paradise”, God urging angels to provide better service, older denizens sighing, “Heaven isn’t what it used to be.”
The scenario is no different here on earth. Life’s a bitch even in what, according to a global survey, is one of the finest places to live. The locals grumble about foreigners, housing, public transport, the rising cost of living and the widening income gap.
But life doesn’t get any better than this, according to the rich man’s club up in snowy Switzerland. Singapore ranks third overall in the World Economic Forum’s Human Capital Index, which compares the health, education and prospects of the workforce in different countries. Only Switzerland and Finland rank higher, taking the first and the second place respectively.
Singaporeans have it good, from the education they receive to their prospects for a better life,  according to the report. “Stuff and nonsense!” may fume the aggrieved on the ground, but that’s not how it’s seen from the rich man’s club up in snowy Switzerland.

In the Human Capital Index, Singapore ranks third in education, second in “workface and employment” (which measures skills and talents), fifth in “enabling environment” (which assesses whether human capital is used effectively) and 13th in health and wellness. Even that 13th rank is not so bad considering there were 122 countries surveyed.
So Singapore is better than most other countries according to the Human Capital Index, but that does not make you feel any better when you are in a funk.
I know. I feel squeezed when I board an overcrowded train and it’s no consolation to me that the peak-hour traffic is just as heavy from Kolkata to London. I am caught in my own emotions while a global survey dispassionately looks at the whole world. It has a broader perspective which can see the big picture but misses out the little details. So to the people in the picture it may not look like an accurate depiction of their particular corner.
I think that is why, while Singaporeans complain, Singapore ranks so high in the Human Capital Index. The focus is different.
Singapore happens to be a particular favourite of the rich man’s club. The little city-state is second only to Switzerland in the World Economic Forum’s Global Competiveness Index, based on an opinion survey of business leaders. The Human Capital Index is also business-oriented, looking at people as economic assets. It has far more statistical data than complete sentences.
Picking your way through the data, you may be in for a surprise. Despite the growing income gap, Singapore still offers better prospects than most countries: it ranks eighth in social mobility. But while it is second in its ability to attract talent, it is only seventh in retaining talent. Why? That’s not mentioned here.
Oh, I mentioned overcrowded trains, but Singapore ranks sixth in the quality of domestic transport. Public transport has become such a major issue here but that’s not reflected in the global survey.
The one point where the global survey matches local sentiment is the social welfare issue. Singapore doesn’t get high marks for this. It is 54th in social safety net protection. Not just rich Western nations – even countries like Malaysia (25th), Indonesia (41st) and Thailand (46th) rank higher.
The Prime Minister has said “the government will do more to support the individual and the community”, so there is consensus on the need to “strengthen social safety nets”. Those were the exact words he used in his National Day Rally speech.
In other respects, though, the survey gives a more favourable impression of Singapore than the Singaporeans seem to have themselves.
Singapore looks great in the global survey, where it is compared with other countries. But what do you care how things are in Timbuktu when you are strap-hanging on an overcrowded bus, feeling the pinch of the rising cost of living, and that guy in the Merc probably earns three or four times as much as you?

Your Step-By-Step Guide To: Buying a BTO Flat

By
The Independent
-
0
HDB flats

So you want to buy a BTO flat. Good on you, and congratulations on this new milestone in your life. There’s just one issue facing you: the steps, processes and terms. Which are so labyrinthine, you could house a decent sized family of minotaurs in them. I suggest you check out our handy flowchart, and save yourself the trouble of devising new profanities for phone operators:
 

HDB, SHG, AHG, OTP, HLE…OMG, WTH?

A brief overview of on how to buy a BTO flat (all bold terms are explained in the glossary below)

  1. Check your eligibility to buy.
  2. Look around for a flat you want, and ballot for it online. You’ll have to wait about a month to be notified of whether you’re successful or not.
  3. Get approval in principle (AIP) from the bank if you want a bank loan. Or, get the HDB Loan Eligibility (HLE) letter if you want a HDB loan. Take note that the HLE is only valid for 3 months.
  4. If you successfully ballot for the flat, look for available grants (SHG, AHG). You will then be asked by HDB to go select your flat and pay the Option to Purchase (OTP). The waiting time between a successful ballot and choosing your flat is roughly 2-3 months.
  5. Sign the agreement to lease. You will need to pay the down-payment, stamp duties, and conveyancing fees at this point.
  6. You will be asked to collect the keys, upon completion of the flat.

Key Terms to Understand

AHG – Additional Housing Grant. A scheme to help lower income Singaporeans buy their first flat. The AHG ranges from $5,000 to $40,000, depending on your income.
In order to qualify, your household income must not exceed $5,000 a month, for a 12 month period before the flat application.
AIP – Approval-in-Principle. This is a promise by the bank to loan you $X, based on your income, debt servicing ratios, etc. Note that the AIP has an expiry date (valid for 1 month), and is only relevant to bank loans. For HDB loans, you need a HLE letter (see below).
Ballot – HDB uses computerised balloting, when determining the queue position to book flats. Some applicants are given better chances at balloting than others:

Applicant Type

1st Time Applicant

2nd Time Applicant

Normal / Public Applicant

2 Chances

1 Chance

Married Child Priority Scheme (Near parents / Married child)

4 Chances

2 Chances

Married Child Priority Scheme (With parents / Married Child)

6 Chances

3 Chances

Conveyancing Fees – The legal paperwork involved in buying the house. The cost is as follows, if you use a HDB loan:

  • First $30,000 – 90 cents per $1,000
  • Next $30,000 – 72 cents $1,000
  • Subsequent amounts above $60,000 – 60 cents per $1,000

For bank loans, you can choose any law firm on the bank’s board. The price can differ by a few hundred dollars, so shop around to find the cheapest (the price is usually between $2,200 and $2,500). Conveyancing fees can be paid via CPF.
Downpayment – The amount that you will have to pay in cash.

  • For banks, the down-payment is 20% of the valuation. 15% of this down-payment can come from CPF or housing grants. The last 5% must be paid in cash. Also see the SDS below.
  • For HDB concessionary loans, the down-payment is 10% of the valuation. All 10% of the down-payment can come from CPF or housing grants.

Note that there is a significant difference between the HDB and bank loans, particularly in terms of interest rates. For more information, see: What is the difference between a bank and HDB loan? below.
HLE – HDB Loan Eligibility. This letter states whether you are eligible to take a HDB Concessionary Loan and is valid for 3 months.
JSS – Joint Singles Scheme. You can read about it in our full article.

Mahjong We get a housing grant, so how can living near my parents possibly cost us more?

Married Child Priority Scheme – A scheme to encourage people to live near their parents. Applicants who live within the same estate of their parents, or in a neighbouring estate, have more chances during balloting.
OTP – Option to Purchase. This document reserves your right to purchase the flat. Getting the OTP requires a deposit called the option fee. The amount is as follows:

  • 4 / 5 Room Executive Flat – $2,000
  • 3- Room Flat – $1,000
  • 2- Room Flat – $500
  • Studio Apartment – $250

Note that, if you pay the option fee but decide not to buy the flat, you will forfeit the option fee. If there’s a good reason why you had to back out (e.g. medical emergency, sudden change in finances, and so on), you can write to HDB to request a refund of the option fee; but there is no guarantee that they will do so.
SDS – Staggered Down-payment Scheme. This lets you make the down-payment in two parts, if you are using a bank loan. You would pay:

  • 5% in cash and 5% in CPF or grant money, when signing the lease agreement, followed by
  • 10% down payment in cash or CPF when signing the terms of agreement

SHG – Special CPF Housing Grant. A housing subsidy which covers both low and middle-income families. The amount of the grant ranges from $5,000 to $20,000, depending on your income.
To qualify, your monthly household income must not exceed $6,500 for a 12 month period before the flat application.

Clothes poles“Honey, guess what else is being hung out to dry? That’s right: we have NO grants.”

Stamp Duties – You have to pay stamp duties because… there is no because. Look, you just have to pay them. Stamp duty rates are as follows:

  • First $180,000 – 1%
  • Next $180,000 – 2%
  • $181,000 and above – 3%

What is the difference between a bank and HDB loan?

For full details, see our article on this topic. The main differences are:

  • HDB loans can finance up to 90% of the flat, whereas bank loans only finance up to 80%
  • HDB loan interest is fixed at 0.1% above the prevailing CPF rate (around 2.6%), for the entire loan tenure. Bank loans are not fixed, but have been much cheaper (around 1.7%) for the past decade.
  • HDB loans have a maximum tenure of 25 years. Bank loans can extend the loan tenure past 25 years, but this results in a bigger down-payment.

Overall, bank loans have a higher down-payment, but offer lower interest rates (at present) and greater flexibility. HDB concessionary loans require a lower down-payment, but have a higher interest rate (at present) and less flexibility.
For more assistance, talk to the SmartLoans.sg mortgage specialists. It’s free.
Got a question about buying your flat? Ask us in the comments box, and we’ll get back to you!
Image Credits:
Thant Zin Myint, sarihuella, Marra Taqos
Source: http://www.moneysmart.sg/housing-property/your-step-by-step-guide-to-buying-a-bto-flat/

Why China President didn't visit Singapore

By
The Independent
-
0
Xi Jinping
Photo: File Image

By Tom Cang in Beijing
Xi JinpingSingaporeans tend to look at China’s leaders with ambiguity, much like watching a very powerful distant relative with wariness and caution tinged with a modicum of pride. Every move is analysed, but there is no way to confirm the suspicions.
At the recent Apec meetings in Bali, Chinese president Xi Jinping made the necessary rounds of networking, hobnobbing with Russian president Vladimir Putin, and holding talks with South Korean president Park  Geun-hye, Thailand prime minister Yingluck Shinawatra, Malaysian PM Najib Razak and his host, Indonesian president Susilo. Bambang Yudhoyono
But observers noticed he did not officially meet Singapore PM Lee Hsien Loong. They also noted that Xi did not stop over at Singapore while on his way to Indonesia, but he visited Malaysia after.
Chinese PM Li Keqiang will tour Brunei, Thailand and Vietnam after the Asean summits, but also not drop by Singapore.
So, the conclusion is generally: “When two top Chinese leaders visit many Southeast Asian nations but ignore Singapore, when top Chinese leaders meet the leaders of many other countries but not Singapore’s, maybe that is a hint that China is unhappy with Singapore.”
Some even quote “well-placed sources that said Chinese leaders are livid over PM Lee’s jokes about China’s environmental issues at a state dinner in Washington”. Among other things, he said, “Beijing residents joke that to get a free smoke all they have to do is open their windows!” The same “well-placed sources” also said “China has its way of getting its revenge at the right place and the right time”.
Such conjecture seems to reflect a rather narrow view of how China conducts its diplomatic relations.
In the first place, it underestimates the historical and lengthy relationship between China and Singapore. Lee Kuan Yew has maintained goodwill with five generations of Chinese leaders from Chairman Mao onwards, and only Henry Kissinger has the same diplomatic standing with Beijing.
China will not ignore Singapore’s contribution as an arbitrator in cross-Straits relationships, or its many contributions in the transfer of essential technology. Even now, many Singaporeans are the major motivators in industries such as hospitality. Singapore is the only country that trains a significant number of Chinese party cadres and government officials.
Another consideration is Singapore’s role as an ASEAN leader, heading a major regional political think-tank. China is certainly looking towards Singapore for an impartial solution to the disputes in the South China Sea.
Ever since the Deng Xiaoping era, China has regarded Singapore as a model for many socio-economic issues, such as housing, transport and tourism among others.
The current leaders are just as interested in a closer look at how Singapore operates, and it was said that CCTV, China’s national television station, was sent down specifically to document its latest progress.
There is no country in the world, in relation to size and geopolitical importance, that China already regards so highly.
Having said that, Singapore observers should keep one thing in mind. China is a player on the world stage. It engages countries like the United States and Russia on an equal footing. It is forming partnerships like BRIC, for example and is a major financial force lubricating deals in Europe, the Americas and in Africa.
In China’s eye, Singapore is a good friend, but it has a relatively small part in the diplomatic machinery China has to keep constantly oiled.
PM Lee and DPM Teo Chee Hean both visited Beijing recently and were received with the proper attention. Not talking at Apec may simply mean there are no important issues to talk about, this time.
Good friends should have enough mutual understanding not to be second-guessing all the time.
 Tom Cang is a veteran journalist who has worked at the People’s Daily, Lianhe Zaobao and China Daily.
 

1...5,3045,3055,306...5,323Page 5,305 of 5,323

The Independent SG

Singapore News

Business

Godfather of AI Geoffrey Hinton says the age of AI is a great time to be a plumber

As artificial intelligence (AI) reshapes the job market, Geoffrey...

Outgoing WPP CEO says AI is ‘disrupting’ the advertising industry and will soon make the world’s expertise available to everybody at low cost

INTERNATIONAL: Artificial intelligence (AI) has sparked debate over its...

Myntra Global launches in Singapore as prelude to broader internationalisation

SINGAPORE: India's leading fashion and e-commerce platform, Myntra, has...

MAS end-June deadline for overseas crypto players aligns with global moves

SINGAPORE: Singapore’s financial regulator, the Monetary Authority of Singapore...

Singapore Politics

© The Independent Singapore