balanced. posted on Sunday, June 18, 2006
|
0 comments
-
The report, 'Entrapment: Lawyers say narcotics officers crossed the line in quest to nab offender, but any method of entrapment is legal here' (ST, June 9), suggested that the Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB) had acted unethically in the apprehension of Adrian Yeo for drug possession.
This led to various letters from concerned members of the public on the entrapment issue.
The Straits Times followed up on the subject with an editorial, 'Entrapment: Fair or not?' (June 14), advocating that CNB's action against Yeo was somehow wrong because 'fair-minded people are entitled to point out it seems neither fair nor ethical to encourage a person to break the law, just for enforcement agencies to gather evidence'.
The ST article published on June 9 regrettably did not report all the facts of Yeo's case. A diligent reading of Yeo's mitigation plea which was presented in court will show that he had been consuming drugs even before he came to the attention of CNB.
In fact, he would not have been of any interest to CNB otherwise; it was his drug abuse which led CNB to investigate him in the first place.
When Yeo was asked if he had any drugs, he volunteered to take drugs to the hotel where he was subsequently arrested with Ecstasy, 'Ice' and Ketamine.
Yeo was, therefore, not a law-abiding person enticed into committing an offence by CNB.
In omitting to highlight the fact that he was a habitual drug abuser, the ST report has misled readers into thinking that CNB had acted unethically when the circumstances of the case clearly showed the contrary and that CNB had acted professionally.
The ST editorial suggests that law-enforcement methods like entrapment should be reserved for only more serious offences involving drug trafficking and 'national security', rather than drug abuse. This demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of the situation.
Drug abuse is a serious threat. The battle against drugs in Singapore faces a new challenge - even as we succeeded in addressing the serious heroin problem of the past, today we face a growing potential problem of synthetic-drug abuse.
A majority of those arrested for synthetic-drug abuse are first-time offenders. One of the concerns this trend raises is the mentality of certain segments of our society who think that synthetic drugs are 'soft' drugs which should be tolerated as they are acceptable as part of a modern 'cool' lifestyle. This is a dangerous attitude which we must not allow to take root in our society.
The ST editorial also suggested that because Yeo is a taxi-driver's son who made it as a doctor, but whose future is now uncertain, the action taken against him will 'reinforce in some people a sense that natural justice had been violated'.
This is a strange argument. Surely, the ST is not suggesting that the CNB action would be fairer and more just if Yeo had been related to a person of high social standing?
This cannot be the way our criminal-justice system should work. Indeed, if the application of our criminal laws and the actions of our law-enforcement agencies were to be dictated by factors such as an offender's family connections, income and social status, it would be highly unjust and perverse, and no Singaporean will stand for it.
Finally, the ST editorial concluded by referring to the 'entrapment' case of insurance agent Teo Ya Ling as another illustration of unethical action by the authorities. This is wrong and without basis.
Teo was not an innocent law-abiding party tempted by CNB officers into committing an offence. She was a small-time drug dealer who had all along been supplying drugs to her clients in return for their buying insurance policies from her.
While a time-honoured tenet of natural justice is audi alteram partem - 'to hear the other side' - the ST reporter chose not to obtain and verify the facts of the case with any of the relevant enforcement agencies, other than to ask whether CNB polices chatlines and the Internet.
At no point did the reporter seek the views of any relevant enforcement agency on the issue of entrapment.
If the reporter and the person who wrote the editorial had done their research, your paper would have been able to present a more balanced perspective.
-
Ong-Chew Peck Wan (Mrs)DirectorCorporate CommunicationsDivision for Permanent Secretary (Home Affairs)
--
equal. posted on Saturday, June 10, 2006 | 0 comments
From Britain's Prime Minister Tony Blair to Malaysia's former Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad, politicians grumble that people are never happy for the good things the government does for them Voters always want more
One explanation is that politicians are often wrong Things are bad The other explanation for this unhappiness is that it all has to do with rising expectations
But there is more, it seems — it also has to do with wanting to be better off than others
Lord Layard, an eminent British economist, explained in a series of lectures in London, in 2003, that we are often more concerned about our income relative to others than about our absolute income
He quotes a Harvard University study that showed that people were happy with less, as long as others were worse off
Students at Harvard were asked if they would prefer a salary of (a) $50,000 a year while others got half that or (b) $100,000 a year while others got twice as much A majority chose option (a)
"Many other studies have come to the conclusion — that people care about other peoples' incomes as well as their own We are all upset when others get a raise but we do not And the only situation where we might happily accept a pay cut is when others suffer the same fate," he says
Our behaviour at bonus or pay-rise time shows that Lord Layard is on to something here
This means that our efforts to make ourselves happier, by working harder so as to earn more and spend more, are often self-defeating because others are also earning and spending more We do not get much happier and neither do others
And working harder in order to be wealthier could make us more unhappy if we do not have enough spare time For, interestingly, rivalry over income does not extend to leisure, as the same Harvard study shows
Students were asked to choose between (c) two weeks' holiday, while others have only one week and (d) four weeks' holiday while others get eight weeks A clear majority preferred (d)
What has all this to do with Singapore?
It may explain why, in good times, with the economy roaring ahead, the bulls charging and property prices setting new records, most Singaporeans were (and are) never happy, always grumbling and moaning
They showed this by voting in greater numbers for the Opposition in General Elections in 1988, 1991, 1997 and this year
This, despite the Government's attempts to put into practice Bentham's utilitarian principles — "The good society is the one where people are happiest And the right action is the one which produces the greatest happiness "
Most Singaporeans have a more or less equal standard of living Yes, there are some very rich people and some very poor people But most Singaporeans live in almost similar HDB flats, take the same form of transport and so on This means most Singaporeans know no one among their peers who is much worse off than they are
At best, the owners of private condominiums can feel better off than their friends in HDB flats, five-room HDB flats can sneer at four-room flat-owners and so on
Worse, because most Singaporeans are working hard so that they can maintain their life-styles, they have less leisure time This may make them even unhappier
Add to that the feeling that most foreigners working here have better standards of living than locals (forgetting that most foreign talents here are maids and labourers), and I'm surprised that Singaporeans are not rioting in unhappiness
Happiness, in Singapore as elsewhere, has come to be defined in materialistic terms — increasing Gross National Product, bigger flats and so on But as Lord Layard has argued, the exercise is self-defeating because other people are also going well
What with the need to adapt to the new economy with creativity and working smart rather than hard, now may be time for us as a society to try to define what we mean by "happiness"
There's been talk, even, of a Gross National Happiness index along the lines practised by Bhutan
Now that things are better for most of us, isn't it time to relook our values? Time for a "Redefining Happiness" committee?
Better still, let's start debating on what we, as a society, define as "happiness" Already, it seems that things may be moving this way
According to a recent Institute of Policy Studies survey of voters, contrary to popular belief, issues such as the cost of living and jobs were not what mattered most to them The efficiency of government and fairness of government policy mattered more
-
http://www.todayonline.com/articles/123283.asp
--
failed. posted on Saturday, June 10, 2006 | 0 comments
And this attitude apparently prevails even when they are steeped in the liberal culture of the American East Coast colleges such as Wesleyan, Wellesley and Harvard, said Professor Linda Lim, a Singaporean who has been teaching in the United States for more than 20 years.
Ms Lim — an economist and a professor of strategy at the University of Michigan's School of Business — recalled asking a recent batch of such students after a lecture at Brown University, including government scholars, if they were afraid of failure.
"Nearly all of the audience of 70 students raised their hands," Ms Lim told her audience at an Institute of South East Asian Studies seminar yesterday.
Ms Lim, who spoke on the topic, "Singapore — Place or Nation? Implications for Economy, State and Identity", evoked lively interest from her audience made up mainly of academics and diplomats.
She contended that tolerance of risk and acceptance of failure are required for political democracy, business entrepreneurship and scientific discovery — all of which Singapore aspires to.
She said that such a culture could even have an impact on the economy. Many foreigners here, she argued, did not see Singapore as a "nation" but a "stepping stone".
Over the last 10 years, she got to know many Chinese and Indian nationals who studied at Singapore schools and universities, often with scholarships provided by the Singapore government.
They worked in Singapore for a few years and then applied to the US MBA programmes such as the one at Michigan University.
"To my knowledge none has ever returned to Singapore after graduating with MBAs, their goal all along having been to use the place as a stepping-stone to the US job market," she said.
Singapore to them is just a place to study and work — like Ann Arbor, Chicago, New York, San Francisco or London — whereas their nation remains China or India or, for some, eventually the US, she said.
"This is only to be expected of a place which is not a nation, at least not for those passing through," said Dr Lim.
National identity, she felt, has its basis in an emotional affiliation rather than pragmatic self-interest. A person who opts for Singapore because it gave him or her a good job, good lifestyle, good education for the children, is only interested in Singapore as a place.
Then there are those who stick around when Singapore is in trouble and cannot guarantee a good life, and those who are concerned with the welfare of others, or try to improve things even at personal risk. These people are of the nation, and not just the place, said Ms Lim.
What is the way forward? Promote active civic and political participation, and inculcate the "sense of ownership".
"As parents and teachers, we know that the best way to develop our children and students is to let them 'own projects' and make their own mistakes while 'learning-by-doing' even though we are more efficient and better at doing everything than they are," she said. So there was no point in encouraging citizens to be contented, apathetic and dependent on the state.
"That would perhaps be a greater threat to nationhood and national identity," she said
-
http://www.todayonline.com/articles/123359.asp
--
first-tier citizens posted on Sunday, June 04, 2006 | 0 comments
Despite Singapore Table Tennis Federation's push to train her as a top player by sending her to overseas matches, she has chosen to leave Singapore to search for greener pastures elsewhere.
While she may have her reasons for doing so and I am in no position to judge her patriotism towards Singapore, it is saddening to learn that she could be replaced by a more well-deserving local table tennis player who may not be better in skills but has the heart to play for Singapore.
Singapore has always been under pressure to buy off-the-shelf foreign talent rather than invest time and resources in developing our own talent. In cases such as awarding bond-free PhD scholarships to foreign students, or hiring foreign talent to play for Singapore sports, these have always have sparked debate.
The issue is always 'build or buy?'
One of the six messages in national education for school children includes 'No one owes Singapore a living. We must find our own way to survive and prosper.'
This message is self-contradictory in some ways. If Singapore has to find her own ways to survive, the first survival instinct is to look to her own people for help.
If Singapore has always relied on outside help, it implies that we are no good, that we are always second grade citizens. For national education is to be effective, we have to ask what is it in a nation that creates loyalty in citizens and what alienates them?
Issues such as sending our scholars overseas for studies, providing bond-free scholarships to foreign students, allowing foreigners to take part in the Singapore Idol contest, and talent-hunting foreign students to come to Singapore to study only serve to alienate citizens.
With the reverse migration of students from India and China going back to their homelands, Singapore will face another uphill challenge to attract more talented foreigners.
It has been said that first-tier foreigners go to America and Europe while the second-tier foreigners come to Singapore. Very soon, Singapore can attract only third-tier foreigners because many of the brightest foreigners from India and China will be talent-hunted aggressively.
If this is the case, rather than attracting third-tier foreigners, we may as well do more to nurture our own people because we have the capability to be first-tier citizens as well.
Once Singapore can achieve that, even first-tier foreigners will be strongly motivated to come to Singapore to contribute.
It is easier to take a sapling from the greenhouse to grow it rather than planting from seeds. The fruit-bearing phase is shorter for the sapling than for seeds. However, if the seeds grow successfully into strong healthy fruit trees, other insects will travel from afar to the flowers for pollination, thus enhancing the quality of the next generation of seeds.
--
Edmund Lim Wai Hoong
--
scour the land posted on Friday, June 02, 2006 | 0 comments
Those who have excelled and still have their physical and mental faculties intact should consider, for the sake of contributing to the highest levels of nation building, serving within the "gold" medal realm of supra-partisan politics That is, in the neutral domain of true statesmanship, offering their wisdom in the management of public affairs
Veteran political personalities today — who are largely from the ranks of one political party — have much more to offer to the future of our nation by rising above their partisan roots, to help build what the younger generation wants and deserves to have: An intellectual space for a multiplicity of responsible leadership voices aimed at achieving the best for Singapore and her people
The recent elections indicate that Singaporeans do want to have alternative views expressed in Parliament, but such alternative views must come from capable people of integrity
They are hungry for more voices from citizens who may not necessarily agree with every policy of the dominant party, but who are nevertheless honest, constructive critics with national interests above partisan or self interests
They want this because they know instinctively that having some degree of creative tension in a Parliament house filled with such members will help the long-term process of coming up with the best options for the country and making optimal decisions
On the economic front, we are now witnessing unprecedented levels of global competition To stay still is not an option, as those who are not moving upwards will find that decay sets in swiftly
All who are without intellectual property (IP) ownership of processes will eventually become the production outhouses working for those who own the IP What this goes to show is that we need to organise ourselves as a nation optimally and put in place the best possible systems that will draw out the best ideas for Singapore
Thus far, we have had the People's Action Party scour the land for whom it considers to be the smartest people Clearly, the party has been successful
But ought we to continue relying only on this mechanism? Looking ahead, women and men of calibre may well find stronger resonance with credible alternative parties of the future
My call is, therefore, for our current band of elder politicians to consider anticipating our country's political needs, draw upon their store of pragmatic nation-building wisdom and pitch in now to lay down the infrastructure for a robust multi-party Parliament in Singapore
Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew, on a couple of occasions in the last two months, had dished out recipes for a First World opposition He had also acknowledged that a First World parliament not only needs a First World government, but also a First World opposition
What elder politicians like him can do is to transcend partisan politics and step up into a "Council of Elder Statesmen" Be available to guide the future process of governance, neutrally Be readily available to counsel and groom women and men of conviction and responsibility to build a career in politics, regardless of party platform
Their guidance will help fertilise the ground for responsible future leadership in Parliament, whether through one dominant party or a multiplicity of credibly-led parties
This council could have within its charter an aim to equip incumbent and aspiring political leaders with certain critical attributes For example, historical perspective and depth vis-a-vis prevailing domestic and foreign issues, long-term planning and fostering national cohesion
The council should not have the force of law It could operate ideally and most effectively through the sheer force of respect for the experience and judgment of such elders
Some parallels could be drawn with the roles that the revered Nelson Mandela and the King of Thailand play in their countries today — they speak from non-partisan positions, yet are devastatingly influential in the realm of nation-building and in fostering cohesion across the ranks
In short, this is an argument for leveraging on the wisdom of our founding and veteran political leaders to try and create stable systems of governance that ultimately help ensure we have the best and brightest working for the ultimate good of Singapore
The writer is founder and group CEO of business consultancy DSA, Dinesh Senan
-
http://www.todayonline.com/articles/121472.asp
--
Jun 17, 2006, Straits Times
-
The report, 'Entrapment: Lawyers say narcotics officers crossed the line in quest to nab offender, but any method of entrapment is legal here' (ST, June 9), suggested that the Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB) had acted unethically in the apprehension of Adrian Yeo for drug possession.
This led to various letters from concerned members of the public on the entrapment issue.
The Straits Times followed up on the subject with an editorial, 'Entrapment: Fair or not?' (June 14), advocating that CNB's action against Yeo was somehow wrong because 'fair-minded people are entitled to point out it seems neither fair nor ethical to encourage a person to break the law, just for enforcement agencies to gather evidence'.
The ST article published on June 9 regrettably did not report all the facts of Yeo's case. A diligent reading of Yeo's mitigation plea which was presented in court will show that he had been consuming drugs even before he came to the attention of CNB.
In fact, he would not have been of any interest to CNB otherwise; it was his drug abuse which led CNB to investigate him in the first place.
When Yeo was asked if he had any drugs, he volunteered to take drugs to the hotel where he was subsequently arrested with Ecstasy, 'Ice' and Ketamine.
Yeo was, therefore, not a law-abiding person enticed into committing an offence by CNB.
In omitting to highlight the fact that he was a habitual drug abuser, the ST report has misled readers into thinking that CNB had acted unethically when the circumstances of the case clearly showed the contrary and that CNB had acted professionally.
The ST editorial suggests that law-enforcement methods like entrapment should be reserved for only more serious offences involving drug trafficking and 'national security', rather than drug abuse. This demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of the situation.
Drug abuse is a serious threat. The battle against drugs in Singapore faces a new challenge - even as we succeeded in addressing the serious heroin problem of the past, today we face a growing potential problem of synthetic-drug abuse.
A majority of those arrested for synthetic-drug abuse are first-time offenders. One of the concerns this trend raises is the mentality of certain segments of our society who think that synthetic drugs are 'soft' drugs which should be tolerated as they are acceptable as part of a modern 'cool' lifestyle. This is a dangerous attitude which we must not allow to take root in our society.
The ST editorial also suggested that because Yeo is a taxi-driver's son who made it as a doctor, but whose future is now uncertain, the action taken against him will 'reinforce in some people a sense that natural justice had been violated'.
This is a strange argument. Surely, the ST is not suggesting that the CNB action would be fairer and more just if Yeo had been related to a person of high social standing?
This cannot be the way our criminal-justice system should work. Indeed, if the application of our criminal laws and the actions of our law-enforcement agencies were to be dictated by factors such as an offender's family connections, income and social status, it would be highly unjust and perverse, and no Singaporean will stand for it.
Finally, the ST editorial concluded by referring to the 'entrapment' case of insurance agent Teo Ya Ling as another illustration of unethical action by the authorities. This is wrong and without basis.
Teo was not an innocent law-abiding party tempted by CNB officers into committing an offence. She was a small-time drug dealer who had all along been supplying drugs to her clients in return for their buying insurance policies from her.
While a time-honoured tenet of natural justice is audi alteram partem - 'to hear the other side' - the ST reporter chose not to obtain and verify the facts of the case with any of the relevant enforcement agencies, other than to ask whether CNB polices chatlines and the Internet.
At no point did the reporter seek the views of any relevant enforcement agency on the issue of entrapment.
If the reporter and the person who wrote the editorial had done their research, your paper would have been able to present a more balanced perspective.
-
Ong-Chew Peck Wan (Mrs)DirectorCorporate CommunicationsDivision for Permanent Secretary (Home Affairs)
--
equal. posted on Saturday, June 10, 2006 | 0 comments
Politicans and civil servants around the world share the view that voters are always unhappy (and ungrateful)
From Britain's Prime Minister Tony Blair to Malaysia's former Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad, politicians grumble that people are never happy for the good things the government does for them Voters always want more
One explanation is that politicians are often wrong Things are bad The other explanation for this unhappiness is that it all has to do with rising expectations
But there is more, it seems — it also has to do with wanting to be better off than others
Lord Layard, an eminent British economist, explained in a series of lectures in London, in 2003, that we are often more concerned about our income relative to others than about our absolute income
He quotes a Harvard University study that showed that people were happy with less, as long as others were worse off
Students at Harvard were asked if they would prefer a salary of (a) $50,000 a year while others got half that or (b) $100,000 a year while others got twice as much A majority chose option (a)
"Many other studies have come to the conclusion — that people care about other peoples' incomes as well as their own We are all upset when others get a raise but we do not And the only situation where we might happily accept a pay cut is when others suffer the same fate," he says
Our behaviour at bonus or pay-rise time shows that Lord Layard is on to something here
This means that our efforts to make ourselves happier, by working harder so as to earn more and spend more, are often self-defeating because others are also earning and spending more We do not get much happier and neither do others
And working harder in order to be wealthier could make us more unhappy if we do not have enough spare time For, interestingly, rivalry over income does not extend to leisure, as the same Harvard study shows
Students were asked to choose between (c) two weeks' holiday, while others have only one week and (d) four weeks' holiday while others get eight weeks A clear majority preferred (d)
What has all this to do with Singapore?
It may explain why, in good times, with the economy roaring ahead, the bulls charging and property prices setting new records, most Singaporeans were (and are) never happy, always grumbling and moaning
They showed this by voting in greater numbers for the Opposition in General Elections in 1988, 1991, 1997 and this year
This, despite the Government's attempts to put into practice Bentham's utilitarian principles — "The good society is the one where people are happiest And the right action is the one which produces the greatest happiness "
Most Singaporeans have a more or less equal standard of living Yes, there are some very rich people and some very poor people But most Singaporeans live in almost similar HDB flats, take the same form of transport and so on This means most Singaporeans know no one among their peers who is much worse off than they are
At best, the owners of private condominiums can feel better off than their friends in HDB flats, five-room HDB flats can sneer at four-room flat-owners and so on
Worse, because most Singaporeans are working hard so that they can maintain their life-styles, they have less leisure time This may make them even unhappier
Add to that the feeling that most foreigners working here have better standards of living than locals (forgetting that most foreign talents here are maids and labourers), and I'm surprised that Singaporeans are not rioting in unhappiness
Happiness, in Singapore as elsewhere, has come to be defined in materialistic terms — increasing Gross National Product, bigger flats and so on But as Lord Layard has argued, the exercise is self-defeating because other people are also going well
What with the need to adapt to the new economy with creativity and working smart rather than hard, now may be time for us as a society to try to define what we mean by "happiness"
There's been talk, even, of a Gross National Happiness index along the lines practised by Bhutan
Now that things are better for most of us, isn't it time to relook our values? Time for a "Redefining Happiness" committee?
Better still, let's start debating on what we, as a society, define as "happiness" Already, it seems that things may be moving this way
According to a recent Institute of Policy Studies survey of voters, contrary to popular belief, issues such as the cost of living and jobs were not what mattered most to them The efficiency of government and fairness of government policy mattered more
-
http://www.todayonline.com/articles/123283.asp
--
failed. posted on Saturday, June 10, 2006 | 0 comments
Singaporeans and Malaysians studying overseas are readily identifiable, it seems, because of their kiasu attitude.
And this attitude apparently prevails even when they are steeped in the liberal culture of the American East Coast colleges such as Wesleyan, Wellesley and Harvard, said Professor Linda Lim, a Singaporean who has been teaching in the United States for more than 20 years.
Ms Lim — an economist and a professor of strategy at the University of Michigan's School of Business — recalled asking a recent batch of such students after a lecture at Brown University, including government scholars, if they were afraid of failure.
"Nearly all of the audience of 70 students raised their hands," Ms Lim told her audience at an Institute of South East Asian Studies seminar yesterday.
Ms Lim, who spoke on the topic, "Singapore — Place or Nation? Implications for Economy, State and Identity", evoked lively interest from her audience made up mainly of academics and diplomats.
She contended that tolerance of risk and acceptance of failure are required for political democracy, business entrepreneurship and scientific discovery — all of which Singapore aspires to.
She said that such a culture could even have an impact on the economy. Many foreigners here, she argued, did not see Singapore as a "nation" but a "stepping stone".
Over the last 10 years, she got to know many Chinese and Indian nationals who studied at Singapore schools and universities, often with scholarships provided by the Singapore government.
They worked in Singapore for a few years and then applied to the US MBA programmes such as the one at Michigan University.
"To my knowledge none has ever returned to Singapore after graduating with MBAs, their goal all along having been to use the place as a stepping-stone to the US job market," she said.
Singapore to them is just a place to study and work — like Ann Arbor, Chicago, New York, San Francisco or London — whereas their nation remains China or India or, for some, eventually the US, she said.
"This is only to be expected of a place which is not a nation, at least not for those passing through," said Dr Lim.
National identity, she felt, has its basis in an emotional affiliation rather than pragmatic self-interest. A person who opts for Singapore because it gave him or her a good job, good lifestyle, good education for the children, is only interested in Singapore as a place.
Then there are those who stick around when Singapore is in trouble and cannot guarantee a good life, and those who are concerned with the welfare of others, or try to improve things even at personal risk. These people are of the nation, and not just the place, said Ms Lim.
What is the way forward? Promote active civic and political participation, and inculcate the "sense of ownership".
"As parents and teachers, we know that the best way to develop our children and students is to let them 'own projects' and make their own mistakes while 'learning-by-doing' even though we are more efficient and better at doing everything than they are," she said. So there was no point in encouraging citizens to be contented, apathetic and dependent on the state.
"That would perhaps be a greater threat to nationhood and national identity," she said
-
http://www.todayonline.com/articles/123359.asp
--
first-tier citizens posted on Sunday, June 04, 2006 | 0 comments
I find it disheartening that a table tennis star such as Xu Yan would choose to leave Singapore after obtaining her citizenship a few years ago (Xu Yan may play for German club - ST, May 26).
Despite Singapore Table Tennis Federation's push to train her as a top player by sending her to overseas matches, she has chosen to leave Singapore to search for greener pastures elsewhere.
While she may have her reasons for doing so and I am in no position to judge her patriotism towards Singapore, it is saddening to learn that she could be replaced by a more well-deserving local table tennis player who may not be better in skills but has the heart to play for Singapore.
Singapore has always been under pressure to buy off-the-shelf foreign talent rather than invest time and resources in developing our own talent. In cases such as awarding bond-free PhD scholarships to foreign students, or hiring foreign talent to play for Singapore sports, these have always have sparked debate.
The issue is always 'build or buy?'
One of the six messages in national education for school children includes 'No one owes Singapore a living. We must find our own way to survive and prosper.'
This message is self-contradictory in some ways. If Singapore has to find her own ways to survive, the first survival instinct is to look to her own people for help.
If Singapore has always relied on outside help, it implies that we are no good, that we are always second grade citizens. For national education is to be effective, we have to ask what is it in a nation that creates loyalty in citizens and what alienates them?
Issues such as sending our scholars overseas for studies, providing bond-free scholarships to foreign students, allowing foreigners to take part in the Singapore Idol contest, and talent-hunting foreign students to come to Singapore to study only serve to alienate citizens.
With the reverse migration of students from India and China going back to their homelands, Singapore will face another uphill challenge to attract more talented foreigners.
It has been said that first-tier foreigners go to America and Europe while the second-tier foreigners come to Singapore. Very soon, Singapore can attract only third-tier foreigners because many of the brightest foreigners from India and China will be talent-hunted aggressively.
If this is the case, rather than attracting third-tier foreigners, we may as well do more to nurture our own people because we have the capability to be first-tier citizens as well.
Once Singapore can achieve that, even first-tier foreigners will be strongly motivated to come to Singapore to contribute.
It is easier to take a sapling from the greenhouse to grow it rather than planting from seeds. The fruit-bearing phase is shorter for the sapling than for seeds. However, if the seeds grow successfully into strong healthy fruit trees, other insects will travel from afar to the flowers for pollination, thus enhancing the quality of the next generation of seeds.
--
Edmund Lim Wai Hoong
--
scour the land posted on Friday, June 02, 2006 | 0 comments
Where should veteran politicians go when they have moved beyond their prime executive leadership years? That is, when they have moved from the "bronze" medal, entry-level sphere of neophyte politicians, and even beyond the "silver" medal level of "seasoned" senior politicians?
Those who have excelled and still have their physical and mental faculties intact should consider, for the sake of contributing to the highest levels of nation building, serving within the "gold" medal realm of supra-partisan politics That is, in the neutral domain of true statesmanship, offering their wisdom in the management of public affairs
Veteran political personalities today — who are largely from the ranks of one political party — have much more to offer to the future of our nation by rising above their partisan roots, to help build what the younger generation wants and deserves to have: An intellectual space for a multiplicity of responsible leadership voices aimed at achieving the best for Singapore and her people
The recent elections indicate that Singaporeans do want to have alternative views expressed in Parliament, but such alternative views must come from capable people of integrity
They are hungry for more voices from citizens who may not necessarily agree with every policy of the dominant party, but who are nevertheless honest, constructive critics with national interests above partisan or self interests
They want this because they know instinctively that having some degree of creative tension in a Parliament house filled with such members will help the long-term process of coming up with the best options for the country and making optimal decisions
On the economic front, we are now witnessing unprecedented levels of global competition To stay still is not an option, as those who are not moving upwards will find that decay sets in swiftly
All who are without intellectual property (IP) ownership of processes will eventually become the production outhouses working for those who own the IP What this goes to show is that we need to organise ourselves as a nation optimally and put in place the best possible systems that will draw out the best ideas for Singapore
Thus far, we have had the People's Action Party scour the land for whom it considers to be the smartest people Clearly, the party has been successful
But ought we to continue relying only on this mechanism? Looking ahead, women and men of calibre may well find stronger resonance with credible alternative parties of the future
My call is, therefore, for our current band of elder politicians to consider anticipating our country's political needs, draw upon their store of pragmatic nation-building wisdom and pitch in now to lay down the infrastructure for a robust multi-party Parliament in Singapore
Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew, on a couple of occasions in the last two months, had dished out recipes for a First World opposition He had also acknowledged that a First World parliament not only needs a First World government, but also a First World opposition
What elder politicians like him can do is to transcend partisan politics and step up into a "Council of Elder Statesmen" Be available to guide the future process of governance, neutrally Be readily available to counsel and groom women and men of conviction and responsibility to build a career in politics, regardless of party platform
Their guidance will help fertilise the ground for responsible future leadership in Parliament, whether through one dominant party or a multiplicity of credibly-led parties
This council could have within its charter an aim to equip incumbent and aspiring political leaders with certain critical attributes For example, historical perspective and depth vis-a-vis prevailing domestic and foreign issues, long-term planning and fostering national cohesion
The council should not have the force of law It could operate ideally and most effectively through the sheer force of respect for the experience and judgment of such elders
Some parallels could be drawn with the roles that the revered Nelson Mandela and the King of Thailand play in their countries today — they speak from non-partisan positions, yet are devastatingly influential in the realm of nation-building and in fostering cohesion across the ranks
In short, this is an argument for leveraging on the wisdom of our founding and veteran political leaders to try and create stable systems of governance that ultimately help ensure we have the best and brightest working for the ultimate good of Singapore
The writer is founder and group CEO of business consultancy DSA, Dinesh Senan
-
http://www.todayonline.com/articles/121472.asp
--