Happy National Day

Yesterday was a day of commemoration for the existence of this country. It was the day for celebration of our achievements, and the day for remembrance of our forefathers who made the vibrant Singapore today possible. But amidst all our rejoicing at the success Singapore has become, let us not forget how it all began.

Singapore's independence should never have been something to celebrate. In 1965, Singapore left only because the Malaysian Central Government decided that the racial riots in both countries would lead to eventual self-destruction. Singapore's Government, which had for so long tried to convince the people that merger with Malaya was the right way to go, had to break the bad news to the public. Singapore was going to leave Malaysia.

With no viable economy, and the constant threat of Communism to fight, Singapore was in a tough spot. Unemployment was at an all time high of 10%. Half the country lived in slums and squatters. Electricity, clean water and adequate food was a luxury. It seemed like we would never make it through. Those of you who think Singapore was destined for greatness, think again. Imagine living in this time. No Internet. No computer games. No phones. Black and white television. No air-conditioner. No washing machine. Not even a clean house to live in. Would you then have celebrated the separation of Singapore from Malaysia?

Yet through brilliant, far-sighted leadership Singapore made it through the tough times as a country. The fire seven times tried us, and we emerged victorious each time. First was the job and housing crunch of the 1960s. Next was the Asian financial crisis. Then SARS came along and everyone thought they would die. Then it was bird flu. Then dengue fever. Each time we were put to the test, sorely battered and bruised. Yet we weathered the storms. And with each time, we grew as a nation. It was in the fiery blazes of these disasters that our national identity was forged. And it was forged anew each time it broke. The iron that this country is made of has been tested time and time again. And it has withstood the devouring infernos.

To the young people of today: This country was never meant to be. But it is, and it is because of the mettle of our people that we have grown as one nation today. Grown as one country. Grown as one people. The seed that was sown by sheer accident has germinated. In times of drought it put down roots, digging through the ground for water. When others tried to choke it it put out leaves and fought ever more to reach the sun. And now the tree stands tall and strong, after fourty six years of trial. It is our job to continue the legacy our forefathers have left behind, to continue digging for water. To continue fighting for sunlight. To continue the struggle they left behind.

It is good to celebrate our achievements. But if you remember the hardship of the past, you will only appreciate our National Day all the more.

This I Believe: Perseverance

When I was in primary school, I was always teased because I was chubbier than everyone else. I was very naive and gullible, and this made me the victim of many practical jokes and bullying. I was even insulted on various occasions, for being fat. I had no real friends to speak of, except maybe one or two who were nicer to me.

At that tender age, innocent and sheltered from the harsh realities of the world, I thought they were -- there was no other word for it -- cool. Yes, cool. They'd play soccer every day during recess, coming back looking like soccer professionals a minute or two before the bell rang. They'd eat lunch together after school, laughing and joking over plates of fragrant chicken rice, steaming bowls of noodles and half-empty bottles of sweet drinks. They'd even go over to one another's house for birthday parties, which were rumoured to be the best ever hosted. They were an adventurous, rebellious group, and to be counted amongst their ranks I thought I was willing to do anything.

It started off with joining in their soccer games. I was always the last one chosen, the fat little kid who couldn't kick a ball to save his life. Oft I heard a groan of disdain or a sigh of annoyance from the captain who had to pick me. Oft I caught glimpse of my team members glaring at me with irritated faces. Oft I ran to take a pass, only for the pass to be taken by someone else from my team. I was never allowed to touch the ball, except when they wanted to mock me. Then they would pass it to me, and I was permitted to dribble straight towards the enemy goal. Inevitably, I would miss time and time again. I would miss all the passes, fumble over my own clumsy feet and fall down, time and time again. I was the Zero.

At lunch, when I brought my food to the table the laughter would subtly die down. The animated banter would come to a halt. Even the food seemed less fragrant in the chilly atmosphere. Soon, I got the message: I could not eat with them. But in my naivete, in the innocence of youth, I persisted with my beliefs. It was just because I hadn't proved myself yet, right? I could still win their friendship, right? Missing all the balls in soccer didn't matter, right?

I was bullied, beaten, mocked, taunted, teased, tormented and humiliated. And yet I now I stand all the more firm, unshaken by tremors, undaunted by storms, unblemished from the lesson learnt. I have learnt to climb onto the obstacles that block my path, and turn them into stepping stones. And it is these erstwhile friends that are responsible for this.

I have them to thank for moulding me into the person I am today. If they had not tripped me, would I have learnt to pick myself up? If they had not taunted me, would I have learnt to ignore the taunts? If they had not wronged me so many times, would I have learnt how to endure the torments? No. Just as plants amongst weeds strive ever more to break the weeds' stranglehold and capture the light of sun, a person who has been tormented will fight all the more determinedly to rise above the opposition. Just as the hand once burnt by fire learns to handle the flames better, a person once deceived will know who not to count as friends. Just as gazelles run ever more swiftly with lions snapping at their heels, a person who has been bullied will be spurred on even more.

Perseverance is the mark of a true leader: to continue in adversity, or not embark at all. I believe perseverance is the quality that serves one best in life.

Financial Firestorm: Will America pull through?

http://www.economist.com/node/21525446

“The Debt-Ceiling Deal”

The deficit-reduction deal that finally raised America’s debt ceiling and prevented immediate default seemed to be successful, at least in the short-term. Republicans managed to prevent higher taxes, while Democrats managed to preserve their healthcare and housing initiatives. Ironically, however, nobody seems to be satisfied with it. Democrats and Republicans alike denounced the scheme, and both pointed the finger of blame at each other.

The deal promises $917 billion in spending cuts over the next decade, in return for an increase in the debt ceiling of $900 million. A plan to further reduce the deficit by $1.5 trillion must be formulated and approved by Congress by December 23^rd, in return for another increase in the debt ceiling of the same amount. This is far from a perfect solution, but it will have to do until a better one can be set into motion. Why is the deficit such a big deal? On it’s own, it is economic in nature, and that is something the Government can rectify. But the problem comes in when political parties try to politicize the economics. Then the entire country becomes involved, and the problem is made much more complex.

I think the economics should stay economic and fiscal in nature. Granted, economic policies affect the entire country, just as politics do. But the critical difference is that when facing an economic problem, a country can stand united to meet it head-on, with all of its strength. A plan can be worked out in a relatively short amount of time, and the plan can be set into motion across the entire country. Policies can be effective in just a few months. When political parties try to use economics to impact politics, the country becomes divided. Nobody can agree on what to do, because both parties think the other is wrong, and that their own chosen solution is the best. There is no ability to reach a compromise, let alone a consensus that everyone supports. As Abraham Lincoln once said, “A house divided cannot stand.” That is the case in America, when the Republicans and Democrats were not just fighting a routine political battle. They needed to first fight the economic battle, as a whole, as one entity. When that was won, the political battle could be carried out.

Who can be deemed to be “more correct”? The Republicans press for huge tax cuts, which they claim will help companies to hire more workers and create jobs. The Democrats press for higher taxes on the affluent and more wealth to be distributed amongst the poor. Frankly speaking, I do not think either one will work on its own.

The Republicans believe that with more money, companies can create more jobs. I think it already has become very apparent that companies based in America are no longer hiring from the pool of workers in America, who demand high pay, good working conditions as well as job security. Compare this to the image of a typical Chinese factory worker. He comes from a poor family or village, so he is thankful for any type of job at all. He is used to waking up early and sleeping late. He does not complain about being overworked or having not enough sleep. Isn’t it much easier and much less bothersome for companies to hire workers fro countries with lower standards? This is essentially why America cannot recover effectively from the economic crisis. Companies find it much easier to hire from other countries. But the demands of high salary are driven by higher cost of living. The only solution I see is to retrain workers so they have better qualifications for the job. Essentially, higher tax cuts will never work because the money saved does not benefit the employees. The money saved benefits the top cats and lines their pockets.

The Democrats believe that with more distribution of money to the poorer people, they will be more able to get jobs. How does that premise work? A person who consistently gets “unemployment benefits” for doing absolutely nothing will soon realise that he can live off the government’s “welfare packages”. It is just like giving a child rewards for lazing in front of the television and expecting him to do his homework. The basic idea simply does not work. The main focus should not be on looking after the unemployed. The main focus should be on enabling the unemployed to be employed so they can look after themselves. The added disadvantage is that when such pensions for elderly folks are rolled out, it is very hard to take them back. People will think it is unfair that they worked for so long, and the people before them got to enjoy it but they didn’t. The people of France protested all over the country in response to President Nicolas Sarkozy’s decision to raise the retirement age from 60 to 62. How do you expect someone to get a job and look after himself when he can get more from lazing in front of the television all day?

I think these two measures can only work if they are employed together, with an added component. Companies will get tax cuts, provided that they use the money to help their employees get trained. Individuals will get pension, provided that they go for retraining classes to improve their qualifications. The basic premises of the two different measures can work if they are modified with conditions. Which company would increase a relatively high employee salary when it could use the money to fatten its profit margins, and which person would go work when he could get money for free? I think this is one of the best ways to share political pain equally between the two parties, and solve America’s budget deficit problems.

Ultimately, America’s leaders will have to pull together and emerge from the fiscal firestorm that already threatens to engulf the nation. Otherwise, America will default on its debt. And when it does, it will be too late.

Copycats of the East

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904292504576484080863377102.html

“Made in China: Fake Stores”

We are all familiar with the traditional Chinese copycat companies, who market goods that are extremely cheap, extremely similar to the goods marketed by global brands such as Apple, and often do not last long. But have we heard of the new Chinese copycats: those who set up imitation IKEA furniture stores, imitation Subway outlets and imitation Dairy Queen ice cream outlets?

Sophisticated store owners are now recreating the store experiences of many global brands which have decided to enter China: such as IKEA, Apple and Subway, down to the nitty-gritty details like helpful store maps, coupons, shopping bag logos and employee uniforms. These stores so remarkably resemble the original brand stalls that it is very easy to confuse the original and the copycat. Sometimes the goods they sell aren’t even fake. In Kunming, China, a foreign blogger posted photos of a fake Apple store selling real Apple goods, such as iPads and iPhones, in an almost identical store setting.

I think this has benefits as it helps to raise awareness for the original stores. I have never heard of Dairy Queen before today, but now I think I will go try the ice-cream they sell, if they have an outlet in Singapore. Subway has undoubtedly become more widely recognized in China because of its copycat counterpart. The fake Subway stores even accept Subway discount coupons if customers confuse the two brands. In the case of the fake Apple outlet in Kunming, Apple also benefits from the sales of the iPads and iPhones as those are imported from its factories. For Subway, which is trying to encourage a type of food not traditionally consumed in China, the extra publicity actually helps many Chinese citizens to gain some exposure to Western style food.

However, it also has detriments. Apple is known to exclusively select its staff for its outlets in other parts of the world, but the Kunming outlet is not subject to such restrictions. It could tarnish the reputation Apple has worked so hard to establish and put many potential customers off Apple goods even before they buy the goods. Also, if this trend continues, the Chinese government will be regarded as powerless to stop rampant infringement of copyrights even in their own country, large though it may be. The Chinese Communist Party spends so much money yearly on internal defence to prevent riots and protests even before they are conceived. With a robust economic growth and vast financial resources, being the biggest creditor of the United States of America, it is hard to believe that China is powerless to even cut down on the number of such imitators, when it has proven to be so effective in controlling public sentiment via censorship of “anti-government” material.

Should these fake spinoffs of original brands be allowed to continue? Perhaps a more apt question is: can they be stopped? Every year, the number of ambitious copycat companies increases, and the trend has been showing no sign of slowing down, even during the economic recession when buyers all over the world became more cautious and thrifty. It is unclear what other effects this will have on China’s reputation as a global economic power, global brands and consumer sentiment in China. One thing, however, is clear: If China does not stop this trend, or at least attempt to, its reputation will be irrevocably tarnished.

China's one-child policy

http://www.economist.com/node/16846390

“Rethinking China’s one-child policy”

Does China have enough people? The question seems ridiculous at first. China is renowned for having the world’s largest population, and many people, although appalled at the draconian measures employed in the brutal enforcement of the one-child policy, grudgingly agree that it was about time China did something to control its gargantuan population and lightning-quick population growth. However, recent censuses uncover some doubts about the one-child policy. The total fertility rate, calculated by dividing the number of new births by the total number of women in the country, may be just hovering around 1.4 – a far cry from the 2.1 rate needed for “natural replacement” when a country can replace its population, keeping it about the same size.

According to statistics published by the Brookings Institution, people above the age of 60 now represent 13.3% of the population, up from 10.3% in 2000, or 39 million more elderly above the age of 60. In the same period, the percentage of young people below 14 plummeted from 23% to 17%. The huge abundance of cheap labour supplied by the population boom – make that a population explosion – that spurred China’s industrialization in the past three decades is nearly over. In the next couple of years, the percentage of citizens above 65 will escalate exponentially, while the population comprising youths below 23 will dip dramatically. The untold effects on China’s breakneck economic growth will be devastating.

I personally think the one-child policy has to be seriously revamped and re-evaluated, if not completely done away with. If the slow population growth continues and results in the drastic dip in the size of the Chinese workforce, the shrinking number of working adults will have to carry the burden of supporting an escalating number of Chinese elderly, in the form of increased taxes. The government will have to increase spending on healthcare and benefits for the elderly. As a result, less money can be dedicated to other more meaningful areas, such as investing in technology to make their factories and industries more environmentally friendly, or in programs to reforest the severely deforested parts of China. These phenomena will take a large bite of China’s already slowing economic growth.

Furthermore, many Chinese prefer to have boys over girls. Boys can carry on the family name, and they have been the head of the house in Chinese traditional culture for millennia to date. While male-dominant cultures are also rampant in countries like India, the one-child policy has played a significant role in exacerbating the situation. Many families will do almost anything to ensure their one legal child is male, including female infanticide and going for ultrasound scans to check the gender of the foetus. This is not only a violation of human rights, it will achieve the effect of “pouring oil on the fire” as Queen Elizabeth once described it.

Some people contend that in the conservative world of politics, it is nigh on impossible to achieve the kind of overnight change China needs to counter the negative effects of its notorious one-child policy. They argue that policies cannot be changed on a whim, that the situation must be evaluated and re-evaluated before the government can take action to remedy the situation. They claim that this boosts foreign confidence in the country. Let me pose a question. Would it be better to have a sufficiently growing workforce or good foreign relations, given that the two are mutually exclusive? I think the obvious answer is a sufficiently growing workforce, for the aforementioned reasons. Yes, quick policy changes are rare in general, but the true mark of a good leader is that he knows when convention needs to be thrown out the window, when tradition can be upturned and trampled on, when policies that have become mainstream need to be kicked out. If and when the situation calls for it, such changes are not only possible, they are also necessary.

If the Chinese Communist Party sees fit to revamp the one-child policy into a two-child policy, well done. If not, China will face its most serious demographic problem yet. And when it does, it will probably be too late.

"Don't wait till places are gone before you enjoy them"

I think Mr Loh, in his article, does have a point. Just like we should not wait until people are dead to commemorate their lives or to praise them, we should not wait until places are closing before we visit them and receive whatever insights and nostalgia that place may bring. I fondly remember the Commonwealth Avenue Cooked Food Center along Stirling Road in Queenstown. Before it closed early this year, I frequented the hawker center often to eat the delicious popiah and nasi ayam or chicken rice. It is, to me, a reminder of the days spent revising for the Primary School Leaving Exam (PSLE). To keep my morale up, my mother often went to buy food back from the cooked food center, especially my favourite chicken rice. I soon came to associate studying for the PSLE with the fragrant aroma of chicken rice. That made the entire experience more palatable and enjoyable for me.

I think this idea can be applied to other areas of life. If we start revising for our tests earlier, we have more time to absorb the material. We can also take a slower pace and thoroughly cover each topic. If there is extra time, we can even go through the material again to “gain new insights” as the saying goes in Chinese. The early bird gets the worm. Isn’t it much better to make good use of our time, rather than fall prey to the numerous inventions technology has for us to waste time? I am sure that instead of rushing through an important assignment a few days before the deadline, it is much better to start a few weeks before, conduct the necessary research or read up on the necessary topics, then finish a beautiful piece that any student can feel proud of.

However, it is necessary to acknowledge that to know what to do is easier than to do. If do were as easy as to know what is right to do, "chapels would be churches, and poor men's huts would be prince's palaces", as stated in The Merchant of Venice by William Shakespeare. Indeed, it is often harder to practise than to preach. However, everything crumbles to human persistence. Thomas Edison persevered for a thousand experiments before he invented the lightbulb. Colonel Sanders went around asking hundreds of restaurant chains to cook his new recipe for fried chicken before someone said yes. That's how we got KFC Kentucky Fried Chicken today. Is it really so difficult to make time to start on a project early, to go do a bit of pre-lecture reading, to research on the topic before attending a meeting? Is it truly impossible to be the early bird that catches the worm?

However, I also think that more can be done to promote this attitude in Singaporeans, of starting early and finishing early. At work, projects could be given larger timeframes, but more projects could be taken on simultaneously. Employees would be encouraged to start early, and do a little more of the project everyday, instead of rushing through one project. In school, more groupwork can be assigned by teachers, but be given a larger timeframe so students develop the habit of good time management. In school, it should be compulsory to take on two projects at the same time, but the timeframe for each project can be larger. Instead of the current four and a half months given in Hwa Chong Institution, students can be given seven months, but will be forced to juggle two projects. This will not only encourage good time management, it will also achieve more results in the same amount of time. Instead of one project per year, now there are two projects per year.

People talk about getting through the day to relax. Instead of wishing time passed more quickly in school or at work and later wondering where the time went, why not take each day slowly, and start things for the long-term future?

Panel Discussion #1

Welcome back, my avid fans/friends and let's kick start the term with something interesting to perk you up.

Recently in Singapore, there was a huge hullabaloo over the Dr Susan Lim controversy. Dr Susan Lim was one of Singapore's most brilliant doctors, and the Brunei royal family had requested her expertise in treating the Sultan of Brunei's sister-in-law. The patient had advanced breast cancer, and was unlikely to survive even with treatment, but was adamant on demanding treatment. For six years, Dr Lim treated the patient. The total bill came to $22.4 million dollars.

The big question: Was it justified? Is it ethical?

There are many different responsed regarding the former question. One must take into account how the doctor scurried around to attend to the extremely demanding patient. According to the accounts of Dr Susan Lim, the patient was very insistent and required her to attend to her personal needs whenever she asked, not even consenting to nurses who took instructions from Dr Lim herself. On one occasion, Dr Lim had just undergone eye surgery, and was having bed rest. However, the patient demanded that Dr Lim attend to her anyway. No matter how people tried to convince her, the patient would not budge in her demands. In the end, Dr Lim had to rely on many other people's help to take an ambulance to the patient's residence, and took a huge medical risk in the fact that she might have lost her eyesight by forgoing bed rest. If that scenario had panned out, she would have been blinded for the rest of her life, just because of one patient's impatience. Also, Dr Lim was the coordinator of many other specialists, such as gyneacologists, psychologists, carcinologists, cardiologists and biologists. There was an entire team of doctors managed by Dr Lim, managing and coordinating their efforts to provide efficient and effective treatment. One can only imagine how torturous the experience must have been.

On the other hand, many assert that the fees charged were simply too high. Even if Dr Lim had been earning a couple million per year, the fees still did not add up to the whopping sum of $22.4 million dollars. Also, it was confirmed after the initial public outburst that she had inflated the bills sent to her by many doctors, by factors of more than twenty. One doctor had sent a bill for $400, which was inflated to above $80,000 by Dr Lim. The Singapore Health Ministry in particular is extremely upset that an offical from Brunei had to come to Singapore personally to make a request on the Sultan's behalf to lower the medical price given by Dr Susan Lim. Additionally, many point out that the patient died despite all the treatment. Worries abound that Singapore's reputation for providing cheap, yet high-quality medical treatment will be tarnished by what has now become a widely publicised affair not only in Singapore, but in surrounding Asia-Pacific countries as well.

This question will remain unanswered for a long time yet.

With regard to the second question, the replies are even more variegated. How ethical is charging high fees? To answer this question, we must ask another one. Why is the public upset over this? Is it because they feel indignant on the patient's behalf? Is it because they fear repercussions on themselves? Is it because they feel ashamed that one of their countrymen has inadvertently tarnished their country's reputation?

From the Government standpoint, I think it is the third reason. The Singapore Health Ministry was and continues to be extremely distraught over what they perceive to be a breach in the code of conduct that all doctors are expected to honour. The message they have been promoting for the past half a century is that Singapore provides cheap, good healthcare. Of course they'd be more than upset, perhaps furious, that a doctor registered in Singapore, a Singaporean, would go so far as to directly contradict them. They fear losing popularity, and while the next general elections are five years off, five years is not a long time. Singapore doctors are expected to provide good, cheap healthcare, and solidify the world perception of Singapore.

From the public standpoint, I think it is the second one. Singaporeans have always been rather selfish, and "kiasu" or afraid to die. Why should they feel for a rich member of the Brunei royal family when they perceive the lives of the rich to be so much better than the lives of the middle class, of the working class, of the poor? I think the majority of Singaporeans are just trying to prevent such an incident from occuring to themselves. Chances are you, the reader who is absorbed in this blog post, are also indignant for this reason. Of course you'll try to cover it up, but what is the real reason for any anger you may be feeling over this incident? You are afraid it's going to affect you and your nice familiar comfortable life.

Back to the question. Is it ethical? The line of ethics is murky. It does not run straight. It curves all over the place, constantly changing along with public expectations. I cannot answer this question yet.

This question is far from answered.