I got the election results belatedly whilst I was in Perth with the family.
For the first time in a very long time, I felt like a Malaysian again. Ironically, the last time I felt this way was when Mahathir (and Musa - the 2M administration) came into power.
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Sunday, February 17, 2008
Singapore Budget 2007 - Off the mark by a factor of 10!
, I wrote a letter to the Straits Times forum on the (embarassing) budget surplus that the Singapore government garnered for financial year 2007. They would serve their citizens well by reversing their decision to increast GST to 7%.
A shorter, less caustic, version of the letter, was published in The Straits Times Forum the following week:
Dear sir,
Our Finance Ministry's estimate of a S$0.7 billion deficit for 2007 was off the mark by a factor of 10 (actuals were $6.4 billion surplus). Question is, why were we so off the mark with this estimate? A lot of political goodwill was exhausted persuading citizens to accept a 2% increase in GST. The $1.4 billion that this generated could have been covered by the surplus if we had done a more realistic budget last year. Even if you factor in an unprecedented year for stamp duty (caused by a sizzling property market), which yielded $2.3 billion more than anticipated (and this does not include proceeds from government land sales which are off-budget revenue for the government), from a planning perspective, we would still have a $2.7 billion surplus if we did not increase GST and if we assumed our stamp duty numbers were as projected.
Singapore is a world model for planning in general. Lets see if we can apply the same rigour to our fiscal planning. This is especially so since this impacts citizens directly, such as an increase in GST that have exacerbated current inflationary pressures.
Dear sir,
Our Finance Minsitry's estimate of a S$0.7 billion deficit for 2007 was off the mark by a factor of 10 (actuals were $6.4 billion surplus). Question is, why were we so off the mark with this estimate? A lot of political goodwill was exhausted persuading citizens to accept a 2% increase in GST. The $1.4 billion that this generated could have been covered by the surplus if we had done a more realistic budget last year. Even if you factor in an unprecedented year for stamp duty (caused by a sizzling property market), which yielded $2.3 billion more than anticipated (and this does not include proceeds from government land sales which are off-budget revenue for the government), from a planning perspective, we would still have a $2.7 billion surplus if we did not increase GST and if we assumed our stamp duty numbers were as projected.
Singapore is a world model for planning in general. Lets see if we can apply the same rigour to our fiscal planning. This is especially so since this impacts citizens directly, such as an increase in GST that have exacerbated current inflationary pressures.
Yours sincerely,
Malek Ali
A shorter, less caustic, version of the letter, was published in The Straits Times Forum the following week:
Dear sir,
Our Finance Ministry's estimate of a S$0.7 billion deficit for 2007 was off the mark by a factor of 10 (actuals were $6.4 billion surplus). Question is, why were we so off the mark with this estimate? A lot of political goodwill was exhausted persuading citizens to accept a 2% increase in GST. The $1.4 billion that this generated could have been covered by the surplus if we had done a more realistic budget last year. Even if you factor in an unprecedented year for stamp duty (caused by a sizzling property market), which yielded $2.3 billion more than anticipated (and this does not include proceeds from government land sales which are off-budget revenue for the government), from a planning perspective, we would still have a $2.7 billion surplus if we did not increase GST and if we assumed our stamp duty numbers were as projected.
Singapore is a world model for planning in general. Lets see if we can apply the same rigour to our fiscal planning. This is especially so since this impacts citizens directly, such as an increase in GST that have exacerbated current inflationary pressures.
Dear sir,
Our Finance Minsitry's estimate of a S$0.7 billion deficit for 2007 was off the mark by a factor of 10 (actuals were $6.4 billion surplus). Question is, why were we so off the mark with this estimate? A lot of political goodwill was exhausted persuading citizens to accept a 2% increase in GST. The $1.4 billion that this generated could have been covered by the surplus if we had done a more realistic budget last year. Even if you factor in an unprecedented year for stamp duty (caused by a sizzling property market), which yielded $2.3 billion more than anticipated (and this does not include proceeds from government land sales which are off-budget revenue for the government), from a planning perspective, we would still have a $2.7 billion surplus if we did not increase GST and if we assumed our stamp duty numbers were as projected.
Singapore is a world model for planning in general. Lets see if we can apply the same rigour to our fiscal planning. This is especially so since this impacts citizens directly, such as an increase in GST that have exacerbated current inflationary pressures.
Yours sincerely,
Malek Ali
Saturday, October 13, 2007
State of race relations in Singapore - Not Good Judging by Wee Nam Kee Chicken Rice experience
It was a Saturday night and the outdoor tables at Wee Nam Kee chicken rice at Thomson Road were almost full. There were only 2 spaces with elbow room, first, to share with a Chinese couple, the second, to share with a neat young Indian man. I chose the latter.
Before taking my order, the middle-aged waitress (a weathered Chinese lady) beckoned to me. She pointed to the table with the Chinese couple, and threw me a knowing side glance to the Indian man opposite me.
Gee auntie, I'm just sharing a table with an Indian man!
She look quite miffed when I waved away her concern.
Before taking my order, the middle-aged waitress (a weathered Chinese lady) beckoned to me. She pointed to the table with the Chinese couple, and threw me a knowing side glance to the Indian man opposite me.
Gee auntie, I'm just sharing a table with an Indian man!
She look quite miffed when I waved away her concern.
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Expect Some Brickbats - LKY interview with Tom Plate
Tom Plate recently interviewed Lee Kuan Yew on a wide range of topics (see transcript of full interview). One excerpt, the one on Malaysia Singapore relations, made me think "Here we go again!". So expect some brickbats from my erstwhile countrymen on this comment:
"Q: Who will come after you? Who would come after you?
"Q: Who will come after you? Who would come after you?
Lee: There are assets here to be captured, right?
Q: Some unnamed bad regime?
Lee: When [Malaysia] kicked us out [in 1965], the expectation was that we would fail and we will go back on their terms, not on the terms we agreed with them under the British. Our problems are not just between states, this is a problem between races and religions and civilizations. We are a standing indictment of all the things that they can be doing differently. They have got all the resources. If they would just educate the Chinese and Indians, use them and treat them as their citizens, they can equal us and even do better than us and we would be happy to rejoin them."
The second part that caught my attention were the words he used to characterise the military junta in Burma. No mincing words here!
The second part that caught my attention were the words he used to characterise the military junta in Burma. No mincing words here!
Q: (blah blah) With regard to Myanmar -- and I realize anyone's guess is as good as anyone else's -- but did you see that it's plausible to ask China, as it did at the Six-Party Talks, in some way to work skillfully and work behind the scenes to assume a role in moving Myanmar forward out of the Middle Ages and maybe into the real world?
Lee: I'm not sure the Chinese have got that power. And in Myanmar, these are rather dumb generals when it comes to the economy.
Q: They are!
Lee: How they can so mismanage the economy and reach this stage when the country has so many natural resources?
Q: It's a gift!
Lee: It's stupid. So I'm not sure. The Chinese, they've tried, and, in fact, we have tried to talk them out of isolation. I tried through a general called Khin Nyunt. He's the most intelligent of the lot. I sold him the idea, or at least he bought the idea, that the way for them to go forward was to get out of uniform and do it like Suharto, form a party -- Golkar -- and then take over as a civilian party. But halfway through, Suharto fell. So, it ended up as the wrong advice, they back-tracked. Then they chucked Kyin Nyunt out.
Q: Timing is everything!
Lee: Meanwhile, I had advised several of our hoteliers to set up hotels there. They have sunk in millions of dollars there and now, their hotels are empty. But, you know, you've got really economically dumb people in charge. Why they believe they can keep their country cut off from the world like this indefinitely, I cannot understand. And you know, you need medicines -- they smuggle in from Thailand. It doesn't make sense.
We will see how it is, but whatever it is, I do not believe that they can survive indefinitely. Look, the day they decided to close down the government in Yangon and go into this Pyinmana, or whatever the place is called where there's nothing and they are putting up expensive buildings for themselves and a golf course -- and the top general had a lavish wedding for his daughter which was then out on YouTube -- the daughter was like a Christmas tree! Flaunting these excesses must push a hungry and impoverished people to revolt. But what will happen, I don't know because the army has got to be part of the solution. If the army is dissolved, the country has got nothing to govern itself because they have dismantled all administrative instruments.
Monday, September 17, 2007
Economiust article on eve of Malaysia's 50th birthday
The Economist wrote a damning article on Malaysia's politics and governance on the eve of our 50th Independence day entitled "Tall Buildings, Narrow Minds".
Ouch. Truth hurts.
Ouch. Truth hurts.
Friday, September 14, 2007
Singapore - Widening inequality between Malays and other races (2)
This is my response to an Insight article in Singapore's Straits Times article entitled "Malays' Progress: Why is Good Not Good Enough?"
It's a big problem with no easy, short term solutions. But I feel strongly that education is at the core of all solutions:
Education suggestion 1:
Allow Malays to choose Mandarin as a second language at primary and secondary schools instead or in addition to Malay. Education Ministry should not force Malays to choose Malay as a second language at school.
Rationale: The nexus of global economic growth is likely to remain oriented towards North Asia. Do not handicap Malays by disallowing them to pick up a language best positions them for professional advancement.
From a personal point of view, I remember Malay parents being envious at those Malay parents who managed to beat the system and get their children to learn Mandarin at primary school - it's sad that one has to "beat the system" to do this.
2. Education suggestion 2
Sex education for Malays. Throw out our religion's bias in this area. I like the way one how one Straits TImes forum contributor puts it - say no to pre-marital sex, but if you must, please use a condom. Make condoms easily accessible in toilets of popular malls.
Unfortunately, the moment religion gets put into the educational mix, there's no discussion about contraceptives, with attendant consequences for teenage pregnancy, young marriages etc. and 2 generations of social and economic problems.
Anecdotally, teenage Malays are more sexually mature and aware than their Chinese counterparts. Let's be pragmatic and deal with the issue.
3. Education suggestion 3
Whilst we can and should encourage more participation in the secondary and tertiary sectors, I think there's scope for natural competence for Malays in certain sectors, e.g. hospitality, military, sports, music and media. Encourage further skills advancement in all these areas.
IRs are coming up and higher skill sets in the hospitality will be demanded (with higher remuneration prospects). Again, do not let religion get in the way (I can just hear parents saying "haram, tak boleh"). Working in the gaming industry does not make you a bad person, just a pragmatic one. What's wrong with putting food on the table and earning extra to educate our children as far as we can?
4. Don't leave Malays to figure out all the solutions by ourselves.
We need the contribution of the best Singapore brains and pragmatists to help reduce the widening inequality (imagine Philip Yeo on the job) . Comments on policies should not just come from representatives of Mendaki or Association of Muslim Professionals, we also need external feedback. And for our part, do not be sensitive if comments are not sugar-coated. We are now at the stage when Malays can look back on good progress, and be self-confident that all comments are for purposes of improvement and advancement, and not snide criticism v
It's a big problem with no easy, short term solutions. But I feel strongly that education is at the core of all solutions:
Education suggestion 1:
Allow Malays to choose Mandarin as a second language at primary and secondary schools instead or in addition to Malay. Education Ministry should not force Malays to choose Malay as a second language at school.
Rationale: The nexus of global economic growth is likely to remain oriented towards North Asia. Do not handicap Malays by disallowing them to pick up a language best positions them for professional advancement.
From a personal point of view, I remember Malay parents being envious at those Malay parents who managed to beat the system and get their children to learn Mandarin at primary school - it's sad that one has to "beat the system" to do this.
2. Education suggestion 2
Sex education for Malays. Throw out our religion's bias in this area. I like the way one how one Straits TImes forum contributor puts it - say no to pre-marital sex, but if you must, please use a condom. Make condoms easily accessible in toilets of popular malls.
Unfortunately, the moment religion gets put into the educational mix, there's no discussion about contraceptives, with attendant consequences for teenage pregnancy, young marriages etc. and 2 generations of social and economic problems.
Anecdotally, teenage Malays are more sexually mature and aware than their Chinese counterparts. Let's be pragmatic and deal with the issue.
3. Education suggestion 3
Whilst we can and should encourage more participation in the secondary and tertiary sectors, I think there's scope for natural competence for Malays in certain sectors, e.g. hospitality, military, sports, music and media. Encourage further skills advancement in all these areas.
IRs are coming up and higher skill sets in the hospitality will be demanded (with higher remuneration prospects). Again, do not let religion get in the way (I can just hear parents saying "haram, tak boleh"). Working in the gaming industry does not make you a bad person, just a pragmatic one. What's wrong with putting food on the table and earning extra to educate our children as far as we can?
4. Don't leave Malays to figure out all the solutions by ourselves.
We need the contribution of the best Singapore brains and pragmatists to help reduce the widening inequality (imagine Philip Yeo on the job) . Comments on policies should not just come from representatives of Mendaki or Association of Muslim Professionals, we also need external feedback. And for our part, do not be sensitive if comments are not sugar-coated. We are now at the stage when Malays can look back on good progress, and be self-confident that all comments are for purposes of improvement and advancement, and not snide criticism v
Singapore - Widening inequality between Malays and other races (1)
Here's an article in the Singapore's Straits Times on Tuesday on the progress of Malay community in Singapore. The full report can be found at :
http://www.straitstimes.com/STI/STIMEDIA/pdf/20070903/Progress%20of%20Malay%20Community.pdf
My personal take? I think Malays in Singapore have set themselves a reasonably good foundation for future economic advancement. But unfortunately it's not enough. Other Singaporeans have progressed much quicker through Singapore's meritocratic (but rather unforgiving) system.
I believe the way forward is a continued and relentless focus on education of Malays. And some bold strokes at the root causes of the community's current areas of dysfunctionality - teenage pregnancy, consequently early (forced) marriages, consequent high divorce rates, consequent single parent families, consequent child discipline problems, consequent truancy, consequent teenage pregnancy - the cycle continues...
Report card on Malay community out
Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong (above) gave an update on the Malay community's progress at the Mendaki 25th anniversary dinner and awards presentation ceremony on Sunday. -- ST PHOTO: DESMOND LIM
THE Government has released a report showing the progress of the Malay community since 1980.
More Malays are in school and getting better educated. They are also holding higher-skilled, better-paying jobs.
In 2005, 70 per cent of working Malays had secondary or higher qualifications, compared to just 19 per cent in 1980.
But at the same time, social problems remain, noted the report released at Malay-Muslim self-help group Mendaki's 25th anniversary celebrations on Sunday.
Divorce rates have risen, and the number of early marriages and births to teenage mums remains high.
In 2005, 16 Malay women out of every 1,000 married resident women divorced, whereas in 1980, only seven Malay women out of every 1,000 married women did.
http://www.straitstimes.com/STI/STIMEDIA/pdf/20070903/Progress%20of%20Malay%20Community.pdf
My personal take? I think Malays in Singapore have set themselves a reasonably good foundation for future economic advancement. But unfortunately it's not enough. Other Singaporeans have progressed much quicker through Singapore's meritocratic (but rather unforgiving) system.
I believe the way forward is a continued and relentless focus on education of Malays. And some bold strokes at the root causes of the community's current areas of dysfunctionality - teenage pregnancy, consequently early (forced) marriages, consequent high divorce rates, consequent single parent families, consequent child discipline problems, consequent truancy, consequent teenage pregnancy - the cycle continues...
Report card on Malay community out
Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong (above) gave an update on the Malay community's progress at the Mendaki 25th anniversary dinner and awards presentation ceremony on Sunday. -- ST PHOTO: DESMOND LIM
THE Government has released a report showing the progress of the Malay community since 1980.
More Malays are in school and getting better educated. They are also holding higher-skilled, better-paying jobs.
In 2005, 70 per cent of working Malays had secondary or higher qualifications, compared to just 19 per cent in 1980.
But at the same time, social problems remain, noted the report released at Malay-Muslim self-help group Mendaki's 25th anniversary celebrations on Sunday.
Divorce rates have risen, and the number of early marriages and births to teenage mums remains high.
In 2005, 16 Malay women out of every 1,000 married resident women divorced, whereas in 1980, only seven Malay women out of every 1,000 married women did.
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
Easing Singapore Taxi Woes
The Reach portal recently asked for views on how to alleviate taxi supply issues that has been a bug bear for residents and commuters:
Despite having one of the highest taxi-to-population ratios in the world, there is still a demand-supply mismatch where the demand for taxis during certain times of the day, especially in the morning and evening on weekdays, far outstrips supply. This is compounded by the fact that most of this peak demand is uni-directional (either suburbs to city, or city to suburbs) and confined to certain areas ofSingapore
My response:
Problem is a classic transportation problem - how to manage peak time demand. Same problem occurs for buses, MRT etc in urban centres all over the world
If one were to build capacity (i.e. supply more taxis) for peak time demand, this would mean that during non-peak times, there will be an over supply situation , making it not financially viable for taxis companies and taxi drivers.
Suggestion 1: Allow private cars to double up as taxis during peak time periods e.g. 5pm to 8pm. Private car owners can tregister to become part-time taxis. They will be issued some simple removable signage that indicates that they are in taxi mode, and perhaps a simple meter (even meter is not necessary as one can just use the odometer and charge per km). Signage can also include where the "part-time taxi" intends to go, so that normal car commuters can pick up passengers on the way home.
Suggestion 2: Encourage taxi companies to move "shift-changing"times to 3pm, not 4-5pm as is the case today
Suggestion 3: Remove all taxes on green taxis (incidentally, goverenment should remove taxes on all green cars e.g. Prius)
Suggestion 4: Encourage multiple pick ups for taxis (i.e. pick up passenger 1, then passenger 2, maybe even passenger 3 going along the same route). The current taxi meters actually allow for this.
Suggestion 5: Encourage share a cab policy in taxi ranks. Hmmm, how to convey this - maybe a whiteboard that allow people to list their destinations. Or encourage shopping centres to have an attendant asking passengers where they are going and if they are willing to share a cab (it is in best interests of shopping centre to reduce congestion in their taxi ranks e.g. Robinsons Centrepoint, Takashimaya
Despite having one of the highest taxi-to-population ratios in the world, there is still a demand-supply mismatch where the demand for taxis during certain times of the day, especially in the morning and evening on weekdays, far outstrips supply. This is compounded by the fact that most of this peak demand is uni-directional (either suburbs to city, or city to suburbs) and confined to certain areas of
Many suggestions have been made to enhance the current fare system, but the LTA said the industry has been largely deregulated since the late 1990s, and fares are thus determined by the taxi companies and the market forces of supply and demand.
Other suggestions have been to do away with surcharges altogether. The
What other suggestions do you have to ease the taxi woes in
My response:
Problem is a classic transportation problem - how to manage peak time demand. Same problem occurs for buses, MRT etc in urban centres all over the world
If one were to build capacity (i.e. supply more taxis) for peak time demand, this would mean that during non-peak times, there will be an over supply situation , making it not financially viable for taxis companies and taxi drivers.
Suggestion 1: Allow private cars to double up as taxis during peak time periods e.g. 5pm to 8pm. Private car owners can tregister to become part-time taxis. They will be issued some simple removable signage that indicates that they are in taxi mode, and perhaps a simple meter (even meter is not necessary as one can just use the odometer and charge per km). Signage can also include where the "part-time taxi" intends to go, so that normal car commuters can pick up passengers on the way home.
Suggestion 2: Encourage taxi companies to move "shift-changing"times to 3pm, not 4-5pm as is the case today
Suggestion 3: Remove all taxes on green taxis (incidentally, goverenment should remove taxes on all green cars e.g. Prius)
Suggestion 4: Encourage multiple pick ups for taxis (i.e. pick up passenger 1, then passenger 2, maybe even passenger 3 going along the same route). The current taxi meters actually allow for this.
Suggestion 5: Encourage share a cab policy in taxi ranks. Hmmm, how to convey this - maybe a whiteboard that allow people to list their destinations. Or encourage shopping centres to have an attendant asking passengers where they are going and if they are willing to share a cab (it is in best interests of shopping centre to reduce congestion in their taxi ranks e.g. Robinsons Centrepoint, Takashimaya
Friday, June 22, 2007
Pontification and Propaganda
Recently attended a RadioAsia 2007 conference held in Singapore this week.
In a session on news radio. a Malaysian representative from Radio and TV Malaysia (RTM), the state broadcaster, was asked to speak on role of radio on national development.
Much to my chagrin, she started her second slide with a picture of Datuk Seri Abdullah Badawi (malaysia's current Prime Minister). The next slide was a direct quotation from him on something about role of media.
The rest of the presentation was needless to say, mindless drivel about role of radio in bringing about national development. Every so often, PM Badawi would be quoted again. There was a second picture of him further along the presentation.
Such is the sorry state of Malaysian public sector leaders. Honestly, the presentation reminded me of the newspaper "The Light" published by the Myanmar military junta. No two guesses about the degree of propaganda in that publication.
It is already bad enough for every Malaysian leading news story to begin with "Yang Berhormat Datuk Seri Abdullah Badawi kini berkata.....". But to have a presentation on professional topics before international audiences being the done the same way is sad, very, very sad.
In a session on news radio. a Malaysian representative from Radio and TV Malaysia (RTM), the state broadcaster, was asked to speak on role of radio on national development.
Much to my chagrin, she started her second slide with a picture of Datuk Seri Abdullah Badawi (malaysia's current Prime Minister). The next slide was a direct quotation from him on something about role of media.
The rest of the presentation was needless to say, mindless drivel about role of radio in bringing about national development. Every so often, PM Badawi would be quoted again. There was a second picture of him further along the presentation.
Such is the sorry state of Malaysian public sector leaders. Honestly, the presentation reminded me of the newspaper "The Light" published by the Myanmar military junta. No two guesses about the degree of propaganda in that publication.
It is already bad enough for every Malaysian leading news story to begin with "Yang Berhormat Datuk Seri Abdullah Badawi kini berkata.....". But to have a presentation on professional topics before international audiences being the done the same way is sad, very, very sad.
Saturday, June 09, 2007
Temasek Divest ment of Telekom Malaysia - What Took You So Long?
On 4th May 2007, the press reported that Temasek was selling a 3.3% stake in Telekom Malaysia (TM), as it transpired, at RM10.60 per share or RM1.21 billion.
This was sold at a discount to TM share price on KLSE, which prior to the report, was at RM11.00.
Note that Temasek was reported to have acquired a 5% stake for RM1.6 billion in March 2, 2004. According to my stock chart, TM's share price on 1 March 2004 was RM9.85.
TM was forced to issue a press release on 8 May to calm investor unease by saying that this was part and parcel of Temasek's normal exercise to "realign its portfolio".
Errr, thanks TM, but this still means that you're no longer part of that group who Temasek thinks is deserving of their money...
Actually my first reaction to the news was, "What took you (Temasek) so long?". I remember when I first heard of Temasek's investment in TM, I'd thought that this must have been a political decision to signal warming relations between Singapore and Malaysian governments. No self-respecting market driven investor would be so short on due diligence that they would not know that TM's fixed line revenues were declining , and Celcom, TM's mobile arm, was losing market share to more organized (Maxis) and nimble (Digi) rivals. But Temasek's other telecoms investments (via Singtel) tend to be safe rather than risk/reward driven anyway, always going for so called the largest entity (read AIS in Thailand, Bharti in India, Telkom in Indonesia, Globe in Philippines) rather than the challenger (you don't get fired for choosing the incumbent - únless its a S$1.5 billion loss like AIS).
So whilst TM's rivals shares have powered ahead, Temasek had to bear with an anaemic stock performance, not surprising since TM suffered classic incumbency issues such as lack of proper incentives but abundance of improper ones, bloatedness, lack of customer focus (ex-Malaysian civil servants, as many TM's staff are, are not renowned for their customer service).
Temasek (excluding dividends etc) achieved a return of a mere 7.6% over more than the 3 years it invested in TM. Comparable numbers over the same period for Digi and Maxis are 433% and 76% respectively (this excludes 2 rounds of capital repayment for Digi).
So a right decision at long last. Dear Temasek, maybe its time to check out the challengers?
This was sold at a discount to TM share price on KLSE, which prior to the report, was at RM11.00.
Note that Temasek was reported to have acquired a 5% stake for RM1.6 billion in March 2, 2004. According to my stock chart, TM's share price on 1 March 2004 was RM9.85.
TM was forced to issue a press release on 8 May to calm investor unease by saying that this was part and parcel of Temasek's normal exercise to "realign its portfolio".
Errr, thanks TM, but this still means that you're no longer part of that group who Temasek thinks is deserving of their money...
Actually my first reaction to the news was, "What took you (Temasek) so long?". I remember when I first heard of Temasek's investment in TM, I'd thought that this must have been a political decision to signal warming relations between Singapore and Malaysian governments. No self-respecting market driven investor would be so short on due diligence that they would not know that TM's fixed line revenues were declining , and Celcom, TM's mobile arm, was losing market share to more organized (Maxis) and nimble (Digi) rivals. But Temasek's other telecoms investments (via Singtel) tend to be safe rather than risk/reward driven anyway, always going for so called the largest entity (read AIS in Thailand, Bharti in India, Telkom in Indonesia, Globe in Philippines) rather than the challenger (you don't get fired for choosing the incumbent - únless its a S$1.5 billion loss like AIS).
So whilst TM's rivals shares have powered ahead, Temasek had to bear with an anaemic stock performance, not surprising since TM suffered classic incumbency issues such as lack of proper incentives but abundance of improper ones, bloatedness, lack of customer focus (ex-Malaysian civil servants, as many TM's staff are, are not renowned for their customer service).
Temasek (excluding dividends etc) achieved a return of a mere 7.6% over more than the 3 years it invested in TM. Comparable numbers over the same period for Digi and Maxis are 433% and 76% respectively (this excludes 2 rounds of capital repayment for Digi).
So a right decision at long last. Dear Temasek, maybe its time to check out the challengers?
Labels: digi, investment, malaysia. mobile, maxis, performance, telecom, telecommunications, telekom malaysia, temasek
Tuesday, May 01, 2007
Dunking Donuts ... err, Without the Donuts
An earlier post mentioned the great service attitude of the ladies at A&W at the overhead rest stop off Melaka.
This is in stark contrast to the Dunking Donuts outlet at the Sungei Buloh overhead rest stop. I drove there one morning about 8.15 am to grab a couple of donuts and a cup of coffee.
The counters looked empty and no donust were on display. On enquiring, the staff in a matter-of-factly tone of voice explained that donuts only arrived at the outlet at 9am.
I thought this was just a one-off, but on further enquiries why there was a delay that day, the staff responded, again with a matter-of-fact tone, that this was the norm - that donuts arrived at the outlet at 9am. Would I care for a sandwich, which apparently was what customers preferred in the morning?
Huh? Errr, isn't donuts your main product and raison d'etre? Gee, the master franchisor of Dunkin' Donuts must turn in his metaphoric grave at the petulance of this outlet.
This is in stark contrast to the Dunking Donuts outlet at the Sungei Buloh overhead rest stop. I drove there one morning about 8.15 am to grab a couple of donuts and a cup of coffee.
The counters looked empty and no donust were on display. On enquiring, the staff in a matter-of-factly tone of voice explained that donuts only arrived at the outlet at 9am.
I thought this was just a one-off, but on further enquiries why there was a delay that day, the staff responded, again with a matter-of-fact tone, that this was the norm - that donuts arrived at the outlet at 9am. Would I care for a sandwich, which apparently was what customers preferred in the morning?
Huh? Errr, isn't donuts your main product and raison d'etre? Gee, the master franchisor of Dunkin' Donuts must turn in his metaphoric grave at the petulance of this outlet.
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
Singapore Branding
This is supposed to be a blog on Malaysia, but I'm living in Singapore now, so I'll lump in Singapore's topical issues with this blog.
This was a letter to the readers' letters pages of The Straits Times, which was not published. Singapore just announced it was engaging consultants to come up with the new, integrated brand for Singapore.
Excerpt :
Companies with revenues a fraction of Singapore's GDP pay millions for a large rebranding exercise, so Singapore investing $3m in this is not unreasonable. Branding is seen by progressive companies as an investment, not cost, that will generate extra, sustainable, long-term sales, so why not Singapore, where even more is at stake (investment, jobs, citizens' livelihoods).
1. Its too early to tell if "Incredible India", "Malaysia, Truly Asia" are examples of a successful national branding campaign (personally I prefer Australia's "Where in the Bloody Hell Are You" campaign). My favourite example of a successful national branding campaign is Taiwan's "Made-in-Taiwan" campaign in the 1990's. then, Taiwan was already moving up the electronics value added chain from basic contract manufacturing to design and more sophisticated production. However, its image still lagged behind and Taiwan was still perceived as a electronics sweatshop. With a clear branding objective (change our image from sweatshop to high tech so that our companies can get more high-margin business), Taiwan embarked on series of advertisements in international magazines, displaying a series of cutting edge electronic products, and each ad was signed off as "Made in Taiwan".
I remembered my reaction to each of those ads : "Wow, I didn't know that was made in Taiwan", exactly the reaction that the branding campaign was designed to evoke. Today, Taiwan's image truly reflects its capabilities as an electronics high tech design and production centre.
So what are current perceptions of Singapore?
Positive ones -efficient, stable, great place to do business, good managers, transparent, good governance.
But here are some bad ones:
"nanny state"
"sterile" (at birth rate of 1.2, this has new meaning)
"boring"
"small market, so ignore it"
"repressive" (IMF 27, Gomez issues do not help)
So why not do as Taiwan did and face the negative image head-on? And take the opportunity to add some wit and spice to it (the very nature of doing this will dispell the notions of boredom and sterility). Here's a suggestion (deliberately facetious to prove the point):
Umbrella campaign: "So you think ..."
Sub-campaigns
1. "So You Think We're a Nanny State" campaign: Advertise risque, controversial images of Singapore (bare-cladded Crazy Horse artistes, a typical night at Orchard Towers or Geylang, hmmm... I'm running out of examples here....) and sign off each ad with "So you think we're a Nanny State".
2. "So You Think We're Boring/Sterile" campaign. Images of Crazy Horse again (indeed, Crazy Horse images are proving to be very versatile...), future casinos, night markets, (ooops, haven't seen these for a while), Clarke Quay al-fresco dining (with maybe Hooters seen in the distant background). Sign off ads with "So you think we are boring" (you get the picture)
3. "So You Think We're Small" campaign - Counter with images of our connections to more than half of the world's population through our multicultural heritage and current business interests in India, China, Indonesia etc (a sub-sub-campaign could be "Singapore: 4 million Asians. Connected to 4 billion more."). Any examples of the theme of "Gateway to Asia" would be appropriate here.
4. "So You Think We're Repressive" - Display news headlines clippings of "Singapore Reverses Decision on IMF 27", "Ministers Drop Libel Suits", "PM Regrets Gomez Overkill"
(yes, yes, all of this is currently theoretical). This particular campaign can sign off slightly differently: "We're Trying"
So there you have it - my little two cents on Singapore's single brand to the world.....
Post Script :
Crazy Horse shuttered its doors barely a year after its grand opening so maybe our boring image is beyond redemption....
This was a letter to the readers' letters pages of The Straits Times, which was not published. Singapore just announced it was engaging consultants to come up with the new, integrated brand for Singapore.
Excerpt :
Companies with revenues a fraction of Singapore's GDP pay millions for a large rebranding exercise, so Singapore investing $3m in this is not unreasonable. Branding is seen by progressive companies as an investment, not cost, that will generate extra, sustainable, long-term sales, so why not Singapore, where even more is at stake (investment, jobs, citizens' livelihoods).
1. Its too early to tell if "Incredible India", "Malaysia, Truly Asia" are examples of a successful national branding campaign (personally I prefer Australia's "Where in the Bloody Hell Are You" campaign). My favourite example of a successful national branding campaign is Taiwan's "Made-in-Taiwan" campaign in the 1990's. then, Taiwan was already moving up the electronics value added chain from basic contract manufacturing to design and more sophisticated production. However, its image still lagged behind and Taiwan was still perceived as a electronics sweatshop. With a clear branding objective (change our image from sweatshop to high tech so that our companies can get more high-margin business), Taiwan embarked on series of advertisements in international magazines, displaying a series of cutting edge electronic products, and each ad was signed off as "Made in Taiwan".
I remembered my reaction to each of those ads : "Wow, I didn't know that was made in Taiwan", exactly the reaction that the branding campaign was designed to evoke. Today, Taiwan's image truly reflects its capabilities as an electronics high tech design and production centre.
So what are current perceptions of Singapore?
Positive ones -efficient, stable, great place to do business, good managers, transparent, good governance.
But here are some bad ones:
"nanny state"
"sterile" (at birth rate of 1.2, this has new meaning)
"boring"
"small market, so ignore it"
"repressive" (IMF 27, Gomez issues do not help)
So why not do as Taiwan did and face the negative image head-on? And take the opportunity to add some wit and spice to it (the very nature of doing this will dispell the notions of boredom and sterility). Here's a suggestion (deliberately facetious to prove the point):
Umbrella campaign: "So you think ..."
Sub-campaigns
1. "So You Think We're a Nanny State" campaign: Advertise risque, controversial images of Singapore (bare-cladded Crazy Horse artistes, a typical night at Orchard Towers or Geylang, hmmm... I'm running out of examples here....) and sign off each ad with "So you think we're a Nanny State".
2. "So You Think We're Boring/Sterile" campaign. Images of Crazy Horse again (indeed, Crazy Horse images are proving to be very versatile...), future casinos, night markets, (ooops, haven't seen these for a while), Clarke Quay al-fresco dining (with maybe Hooters seen in the distant background). Sign off ads with "So you think we are boring" (you get the picture)
3. "So You Think We're Small" campaign - Counter with images of our connections to more than half of the world's population through our multicultural heritage and current business interests in India, China, Indonesia etc (a sub-sub-campaign could be "Singapore: 4 million Asians. Connected to 4 billion more."). Any examples of the theme of "Gateway to Asia" would be appropriate here.
4. "So You Think We're Repressive" - Display news headlines clippings of "Singapore Reverses Decision on IMF 27", "Ministers Drop Libel Suits", "PM Regrets Gomez Overkill"
(yes, yes, all of this is currently theoretical). This particular campaign can sign off slightly differently: "We're Trying"
So there you have it - my little two cents on Singapore's single brand to the world.....
Post Script :
Crazy Horse shuttered its doors barely a year after its grand opening so maybe our boring image is beyond redemption....
Pay Malaysian Ministers $5million each!
This was an email to the readers' letters section to the leading Singapore English broadsheet - The Straits Times. Singapore just had announced increase of salaries for its ministers and civil servants. IN the case of ministers, their salaries were increased from about $1.2 million a year to $1.9m a year.
The letter was published in the forum section of The Stratis Times on 11th April, 2007
No second guesses as to which country I'm referring to below:
Excerpt:
I am a national of a neighboring ASEAN country, though a Singapore resident. This is my take:
The principle of paying competitive salaries for ministers and civil servants is fair. If this ensures integrity, zero-corruption and reasonable competency, then it is well worth it.
I would gladly pay S$1m, S$2m or even S$5m for each minister of my country if they can guarantee one thing: Integrity. The cost of lack of integrity runs into billions of billions of dollars in wasted government expenditure. This expenditure is driven not by genuine citizens' needs, but by juicy procurement contracts and associated kickbacks. Leave alone the cost of the culture of corruption that corrodes the whole civil service.
The only issue Singaporeans should debate is what is the relevant benchmark. Whether its two thirds of the median of top 8 earners in each profession or of the top 80 earners in each profession', should be up for parliamentary debate. To me, my benchmark for my country is how much it would cost my country's taxpayers to make sure our ministers and civil servants do not stray off the narrow path of integrity. This, currently, is a very, very large figure.
The principle of paying competitive salaries for ministers and civil servants is fair. If this ensures integrity, zero-corruption and reasonable competency, then it is well worth it.
I would gladly pay S$1m, S$2m or even S$5m for each minister of my country if they can guarantee one thing: Integrity. The cost of lack of integrity runs into billions of billions of dollars in wasted government expenditure. This expenditure is driven not by genuine citizens' needs, but by juicy procurement contracts and associated kickbacks. Leave alone the cost of the culture of corruption that corrodes the whole civil service.
The only issue Singaporeans should debate is what is the relevant benchmark. Whether its two thirds of the median of top 8 earners in each profession or of the top 80 earners in each profession', should be up for parliamentary debate. To me, my benchmark for my country is how much it would cost my country's taxpayers to make sure our ministers and civil servants do not stray off the narrow path of integrity. This, currently, is a very, very large figure.
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
Horrid Malaysian Driver Habits - But Post-Script
Just arrived home in Singapore after driving from KL for about 4 hours. Must say, I do detest the following atrocious habits of Malaysian drivers:
- Cars flashing headlights when they’re still half a kilometer behind you asking you to get out of their way (Who do you think you are? A VVIP motorcade? (another bad Malaysian habit, but that's another story))
- If somehow you don’t match their 150km speed whilst overtaking another vehicle on the fast lane, you’ll get the annoyance of a 10-inch tailgate to physically nudge you out of your way.
All this when you’re already overtaking in the fast lane 10-20km/h above the speed limit.
Johorean drivers are the worst culprits, followed by KL cars. Singapore cars are guilty of it too.
On a nicer note, I think the most well-spoken (almost perfect English) and polite group of fast-food workers are at A&W at the Overhead Bridge Reststop at Ayer Keroh. The Malay girls in tudungs greet you cheerily with a genuine hello, then proceed to take orders in great UNAFFECTED English (same can't be said of Malaysian radio DJs). A hail of genuine thank yous then follow you as you walk out. Reminds me of a Japanese restaurant welcome, but genuine and spontaneous. Recommend any fast food chain who wish to train their staff to see these girls in action.
Good job ladies!
- Cars flashing headlights when they’re still half a kilometer behind you asking you to get out of their way (Who do you think you are? A VVIP motorcade? (another bad Malaysian habit, but that's another story))
- If somehow you don’t match their 150km speed whilst overtaking another vehicle on the fast lane, you’ll get the annoyance of a 10-inch tailgate to physically nudge you out of your way.
All this when you’re already overtaking in the fast lane 10-20km/h above the speed limit.
Johorean drivers are the worst culprits, followed by KL cars. Singapore cars are guilty of it too.
On a nicer note, I think the most well-spoken (almost perfect English) and polite group of fast-food workers are at A&W at the Overhead Bridge Reststop at Ayer Keroh. The Malay girls in tudungs greet you cheerily with a genuine hello, then proceed to take orders in great UNAFFECTED English (same can't be said of Malaysian radio DJs). A hail of genuine thank yous then follow you as you walk out. Reminds me of a Japanese restaurant welcome, but genuine and spontaneous. Recommend any fast food chain who wish to train their staff to see these girls in action.
Good job ladies!
Tuesday, March 07, 2006
Bad show, MCMC
Wow, it's been a long time. But something happened recently that warrants a quick missive. Digi, majority owned by Telenor, failed to get a 3G licence in Malaysia. So we thought we had gotten passed cronyism and toll-mentality business in Malaysia?
Poor Digi, this is what they get for being the most innovative mobile telco in Malaysia, and after setting up a (genuine) global R&D Centre for mobile applications in Cyberjaya. You would have thought the Malaysian Multimedia Commission would have Digi take up one of the 2 3G licences up for grabs. No instead the first was given to Time dot Com, a half rate company that failed in 2G mobile and but got rescued by Maxis in the form a pay-off (arm-twisted by the regulators at the time). The second was given to MiTV, a company that is more vapour ware and hype, and controlled by tycoon Vincent Tan(who incidentally used to owned a majority share in Digi, whose performance languished until Telenor took majority share and management control).
No doubt this is a flipping exercise. Vincent Tan will have a second bite at the cherry in reselling 3G capacity to Digi (greedy, as since Tan's departure, Telenor has more than double Digi's stock price, which benefited Tan handsomely). Life is not fair, but this is really really unprofessional. Great signals we're sending to the investor community, who. as it is, are already bypassing Malaysia in the rush to China.
Bad show MCMC, we expect more from you.
Poor Digi, this is what they get for being the most innovative mobile telco in Malaysia, and after setting up a (genuine) global R&D Centre for mobile applications in Cyberjaya. You would have thought the Malaysian Multimedia Commission would have Digi take up one of the 2 3G licences up for grabs. No instead the first was given to Time dot Com, a half rate company that failed in 2G mobile and but got rescued by Maxis in the form a pay-off (arm-twisted by the regulators at the time). The second was given to MiTV, a company that is more vapour ware and hype, and controlled by tycoon Vincent Tan(who incidentally used to owned a majority share in Digi, whose performance languished until Telenor took majority share and management control).
No doubt this is a flipping exercise. Vincent Tan will have a second bite at the cherry in reselling 3G capacity to Digi (greedy, as since Tan's departure, Telenor has more than double Digi's stock price, which benefited Tan handsomely). Life is not fair, but this is really really unprofessional. Great signals we're sending to the investor community, who. as it is, are already bypassing Malaysia in the rush to China.
Bad show MCMC, we expect more from you.
Thursday, December 19, 2002
The First One
My first blog! Thought that a great topic will be about Malaysia, since there is so much to rant and rave about. Like why city planners in KL cannot do the simplest planning and integrate the three light rail systems (have you taken one? Try change from STAR to Putra and you will see what I mean). Or how about the umpteen number of chest-beating, publicity hungry, sensationalist politicians we have in our midst. Great lampooning stuff.
Hah, can't wait for the next edition of the Star to get the raving juices going...
Hah, can't wait for the next edition of the Star to get the raving juices going...
Friday, September 14, 2001
Wanna Create An Entrepreneurial Culture?
Article posted (can't remember exactly when, probably 2001) on a Singapore government website that was asking for feedback on how to remake Singapore. This article written in response to the question posed below.
Beyond Careers: New Roads to Success.
We now have an escalator approach to success. Young Singaporeans strive to get on the right track in education, graduate, get on to one of the established career tracks by working for a large company, and expect to be set for life. What needs to be changed in order for us to be a more entrepreneurial society? How will education, attitudes and values need to be changed? The Economic Review Committee will be looking mainly at the economic and financial incentives. This committee will look at the soft side. How will we stimulate creativity, greater risk taking, higher tolerance of failure, and provide alternative role models of success?
1. Abolish the Singapore scholarship system in its present form.
This has served us well for the last 2 decades. But the appropriateness of long term scholarship bonds in rapidly changing market conditions should be examined. Many scholars are just "serving out their time", present in body but elsewhere in spirit. And this spirit might include entrepreneurial ambitions.
Instead of 5+ year bond in return for a fully funded scholarship, give the scholar an option. You can either get full scholarship in return for a 3 year bond, or you can decide at the end of your degree to convert your scholarship to a loan. You decide, based on your career options and interests at the end of your degree.
This is what happens in leading US consulting firms like McKinsey and The Boston Consulting Group with regard to funding an MBA programme for their entry-level consultants. MBA-wannabes will get full funding, but if they choose not to join the firm after graduation, they have to pay back the funds. Usually their new employers will foot the bill or at least arrange for a loan scheme with a bank.
In practice if one were to do this for Singapore, we need to get real abut the length of the bond period. Anything above 3 years is too long in my opinion, but we still see 7 year bonds around.
A side benefit of implementing something like this is that a lot more scholarships will have to be offered to get the same number of recruits that government agencies want - which will mean a bigger pool of people who will benefit from scholarship/loan opportunities.
2. Break up the GLCs into smaller business units, and encourage management buy-outs (MBOs)It pains me to see some GLCs speak of 4 core businesses when core really means one. Break them up! Unleash the entrepreneurial spirit of the business unit heads. Spin off business units, encourage management buy-outs of stakes in these business units and see what these ex-business units can do as a focused independent company.
Sever the relationship at the board level between the parent company and the spin-off entity so that the latter can truly become independent and even deal with the former parent's competitors.
The days of leaving management of companies to a few trusted hands shows the government's own risk averseness. Time to walk the talk. You might discover some hidden talent within the 2nd level management ranks. No doubt you will win some and lose some.
A secondary benefit of a proliferation of MBOs in Singapore is that the bond market will come to life (as management teams seek financing to buy-out business units). Investment bankers will be kept busy, and maybe all those retrenched folks in the financial services sector will be rehired again.(I have dealt with some representatives of a GLC and they are a royal pain - all looking to look good internally but not really caring about whether customer/partners needs are met. Maybe, as an independent entity, where their survival depends on their customers, their customers' voices might be heard)
3. Encourage franchising.
A two tiered approach in this area. First, assist some good local products and services to develop a franchise system that can be expanded internationally. Second, encourage Singaporeans, particularly those recently retrenched, to consider franchising as a first step into the world of entrepreneurship.
With regard to the first, it is refreshing to see the worldwide Coffee Bean head franchise bought out by a Singaporean, and now being expanded internationally. There is Ya-Kun Kaya toast, who are beginning their journey in franchising. Some possibilities: a fish head curry franchise (like Muthu's Curry), a roti prata and teh tarik franchise, a kueh franchise (like Bengawan Solo), a nyonya food franchise (sorry the franchise opportunities examples used so far revolve around food, but hey, this is a core competency of Singaporeans). Subsidise the costs of setting up a franchise system, and get some professionals on the government's payroll to identify, encourage and advise local successful businesses to build a franchise system.
Second, encourage Singaporeans to start their entrepreneurial career through franchising. Have more franchise fairs, list franchises in a web-accessible database and try lower the entry risks for potential franchisors (e.g. low interest loan scheme to pay for franchise fees, or a one for one matching scheme to pay for franchise and start-up fees, like our current angel investing programme). Encourage GLCs who own master franchises to farm them out, and not be too kiasu about the upfront franchise fees.
Run training/information programmes that enable a potential franchisee to identify which franchises have a high chance of succeeding, and which are just fronts for master franchise owners to make a fast buck (read bubble tea).
4. Encourage risk-sharing by land and building owners (especially the GLCs)
A disproportionate proportion of the cost of doing business in Singapore is high rental costs (even in current depressed markets, commercial landlords including GLCs are still holding out for high rents). High rents means greater operational risk, and our poor franchisee above and other entrepreneurial companies are likely to struggle to cover their operational costs.
Why not encourage the kind of leases that encourage risk sharing between landlord and tenant, common in the States? For example, why not tie rental to the sales revenue of a particular retail tenant. Instead of charging a Ya-Kun Kaya Toast franchisee a rent of $10,000 a month, why not have a cap and collar approach - charge minimum rental of $5,000, then 2% of retails sales up to a maximum of $15,000 a month?
This substantially reduces the operational risk for the tenant, and aligns both the interests of the landlord and the tenant to ensure that the tenant's business is successful. Landlord will do all they can to encourage foot traffic, and their success or otherwise in doing so will reflect immediately in their monthly rental takings.No reason why this should not apply to other non-retail businesses, but alignment of interests between landlord and tenant will be harder to achieve.
5. Reform of education system
I must admit that although I did my secondary education in Singapore, I have not experienced the Singapore education system. However, it is telling that many parents I speak to are scared of the Singapore education system, which is perceived to be ruthless and unforgiving.
So much so that Singaporean parents are considering sending their children to alternative education systems (trying to find a lubang to get into international schools); non Singaporeans asked to work in Singapore are deterred from coming here because they fear their kids cannot cope in Singaporean schools. It speaks volumes when a whole movie can be written on the unforgiving nature of Singapore schools.
Let us first acknowledge something. This is a good problem to have. Other South-East Asian countries (and many of the developed ones) are still at the stage of figuring out how to provide a good basic education (underpaid teachers, no talent in the profession, teachers supplementing poor wages by selling Amway products). Singapore instead is thinking of how to tweak its solid education system so it produces more well-rounded individuals, and where academic failure does not necessarily mean the end of the world. A very, very unique, highest order first world problem. Suggestions:
A.. Get rid of streaming at the primary school level.
Begin streaming at the secondary school stage only. This is to explicitly recognise that primary school is very much in the realm of the period of discovery, Get the kids to enjoy knowledge for knowledge's sake at this stage. So long as the kids get a good grounding in the 3Rs (reading, writing and arithmetic) that prepares them well for secondary school, our basic job is done. But if we can get them excited about the world around them, and because of that they thirst for knowledge, this is a great goal to work for. Streaming gets in the way of this as the focus is more on exams than on knowledge.
B. Even where streaming is introduced, e,g, Secondary 1, only certain subjects should be streamed, e.g. English, Mathematics, Sciences. Kids should be able to be in Stream 1 for English yet Stream 2 for Mathematics, and mingle with other students for other subjects.
This get rids of elitism and encourages mingling of students of different abilities in the same class, notwithstanding that they are streamed for others.
C. The secondary school curriculum should emphasis learning more than exams. This means that we should base end-of-year results less on exams than on class projects. Sure, continue the class tests to measure abilities, but also place equal if not more emphasis on projects, where knowledge from different disciplines is applied. We can always shift gear to the GCSE exam mode two years before actual date of the exam.
In these class projects, one can introduce an entrepreneurial bias e.g. new products/services that will improve our lives, innovative ways to raise funds for charity, to nurture and encourage creativity
D. Consider replacing A-Levels with the International Baccalaureate (IB) system. It is well recognised that IB is a more holistic form education which includes a good emphasis of application of learning (e.g. in assessed projects) as opposed to just learning itself.
6. Educate general public on entrepreneurship
In the early 80's, I remembered John Cleese of the Monty Python fame, doing corporate videos on business management. These were immensely entertaining and were targeted towards people who wanted to learn the basic fundamentals of running a business. It was delivered in a casual and humorous way, which probably accounts for its success.We can do a similar one focusing on running your own business, starring Gurmit Singh. There are discrete topics probably to do an 8 part series, starting from identifying opportunities, to financing a business to managing cash flow. Air it on TV, in Mandarin, in Malay, in English, get people engaged through its humorous delivery.
Complementing this could be 8-10 week programmes in entrepreneurial management, which could be offered along the lines of the WSTP programmes offered by SPEC/SHRI currently. I'd be happy to contribute towards the development of such a programme if required.
7. Continue to publicise entrepreneurial role models
Don't just focus on Sim Won Hoo, but also middle of the road entrepreneurs too, even the successful Muthu's curry and Ya-Kun Kaya Toast owner. Focus on the phoenixes too. Get them to speak of the difficulties they faced along the way, not just their successes, to prepare their audience for the challenges ahead.
Beyond Careers: New Roads to Success.
We now have an escalator approach to success. Young Singaporeans strive to get on the right track in education, graduate, get on to one of the established career tracks by working for a large company, and expect to be set for life. What needs to be changed in order for us to be a more entrepreneurial society? How will education, attitudes and values need to be changed? The Economic Review Committee will be looking mainly at the economic and financial incentives. This committee will look at the soft side. How will we stimulate creativity, greater risk taking, higher tolerance of failure, and provide alternative role models of success?
1. Abolish the Singapore scholarship system in its present form.
This has served us well for the last 2 decades. But the appropriateness of long term scholarship bonds in rapidly changing market conditions should be examined. Many scholars are just "serving out their time", present in body but elsewhere in spirit. And this spirit might include entrepreneurial ambitions.
Instead of 5+ year bond in return for a fully funded scholarship, give the scholar an option. You can either get full scholarship in return for a 3 year bond, or you can decide at the end of your degree to convert your scholarship to a loan. You decide, based on your career options and interests at the end of your degree.
This is what happens in leading US consulting firms like McKinsey and The Boston Consulting Group with regard to funding an MBA programme for their entry-level consultants. MBA-wannabes will get full funding, but if they choose not to join the firm after graduation, they have to pay back the funds. Usually their new employers will foot the bill or at least arrange for a loan scheme with a bank.
In practice if one were to do this for Singapore, we need to get real abut the length of the bond period. Anything above 3 years is too long in my opinion, but we still see 7 year bonds around.
A side benefit of implementing something like this is that a lot more scholarships will have to be offered to get the same number of recruits that government agencies want - which will mean a bigger pool of people who will benefit from scholarship/loan opportunities.
2. Break up the GLCs into smaller business units, and encourage management buy-outs (MBOs)It pains me to see some GLCs speak of 4 core businesses when core really means one. Break them up! Unleash the entrepreneurial spirit of the business unit heads. Spin off business units, encourage management buy-outs of stakes in these business units and see what these ex-business units can do as a focused independent company.
Sever the relationship at the board level between the parent company and the spin-off entity so that the latter can truly become independent and even deal with the former parent's competitors.
The days of leaving management of companies to a few trusted hands shows the government's own risk averseness. Time to walk the talk. You might discover some hidden talent within the 2nd level management ranks. No doubt you will win some and lose some.
A secondary benefit of a proliferation of MBOs in Singapore is that the bond market will come to life (as management teams seek financing to buy-out business units). Investment bankers will be kept busy, and maybe all those retrenched folks in the financial services sector will be rehired again.(I have dealt with some representatives of a GLC and they are a royal pain - all looking to look good internally but not really caring about whether customer/partners needs are met. Maybe, as an independent entity, where their survival depends on their customers, their customers' voices might be heard)
3. Encourage franchising.
A two tiered approach in this area. First, assist some good local products and services to develop a franchise system that can be expanded internationally. Second, encourage Singaporeans, particularly those recently retrenched, to consider franchising as a first step into the world of entrepreneurship.
With regard to the first, it is refreshing to see the worldwide Coffee Bean head franchise bought out by a Singaporean, and now being expanded internationally. There is Ya-Kun Kaya toast, who are beginning their journey in franchising. Some possibilities: a fish head curry franchise (like Muthu's Curry), a roti prata and teh tarik franchise, a kueh franchise (like Bengawan Solo), a nyonya food franchise (sorry the franchise opportunities examples used so far revolve around food, but hey, this is a core competency of Singaporeans). Subsidise the costs of setting up a franchise system, and get some professionals on the government's payroll to identify, encourage and advise local successful businesses to build a franchise system.
Second, encourage Singaporeans to start their entrepreneurial career through franchising. Have more franchise fairs, list franchises in a web-accessible database and try lower the entry risks for potential franchisors (e.g. low interest loan scheme to pay for franchise fees, or a one for one matching scheme to pay for franchise and start-up fees, like our current angel investing programme). Encourage GLCs who own master franchises to farm them out, and not be too kiasu about the upfront franchise fees.
Run training/information programmes that enable a potential franchisee to identify which franchises have a high chance of succeeding, and which are just fronts for master franchise owners to make a fast buck (read bubble tea).
4. Encourage risk-sharing by land and building owners (especially the GLCs)
A disproportionate proportion of the cost of doing business in Singapore is high rental costs (even in current depressed markets, commercial landlords including GLCs are still holding out for high rents). High rents means greater operational risk, and our poor franchisee above and other entrepreneurial companies are likely to struggle to cover their operational costs.
Why not encourage the kind of leases that encourage risk sharing between landlord and tenant, common in the States? For example, why not tie rental to the sales revenue of a particular retail tenant. Instead of charging a Ya-Kun Kaya Toast franchisee a rent of $10,000 a month, why not have a cap and collar approach - charge minimum rental of $5,000, then 2% of retails sales up to a maximum of $15,000 a month?
This substantially reduces the operational risk for the tenant, and aligns both the interests of the landlord and the tenant to ensure that the tenant's business is successful. Landlord will do all they can to encourage foot traffic, and their success or otherwise in doing so will reflect immediately in their monthly rental takings.No reason why this should not apply to other non-retail businesses, but alignment of interests between landlord and tenant will be harder to achieve.
5. Reform of education system
I must admit that although I did my secondary education in Singapore, I have not experienced the Singapore education system. However, it is telling that many parents I speak to are scared of the Singapore education system, which is perceived to be ruthless and unforgiving.
So much so that Singaporean parents are considering sending their children to alternative education systems (trying to find a lubang to get into international schools); non Singaporeans asked to work in Singapore are deterred from coming here because they fear their kids cannot cope in Singaporean schools. It speaks volumes when a whole movie can be written on the unforgiving nature of Singapore schools.
Let us first acknowledge something. This is a good problem to have. Other South-East Asian countries (and many of the developed ones) are still at the stage of figuring out how to provide a good basic education (underpaid teachers, no talent in the profession, teachers supplementing poor wages by selling Amway products). Singapore instead is thinking of how to tweak its solid education system so it produces more well-rounded individuals, and where academic failure does not necessarily mean the end of the world. A very, very unique, highest order first world problem. Suggestions:
A.. Get rid of streaming at the primary school level.
Begin streaming at the secondary school stage only. This is to explicitly recognise that primary school is very much in the realm of the period of discovery, Get the kids to enjoy knowledge for knowledge's sake at this stage. So long as the kids get a good grounding in the 3Rs (reading, writing and arithmetic) that prepares them well for secondary school, our basic job is done. But if we can get them excited about the world around them, and because of that they thirst for knowledge, this is a great goal to work for. Streaming gets in the way of this as the focus is more on exams than on knowledge.
B. Even where streaming is introduced, e,g, Secondary 1, only certain subjects should be streamed, e.g. English, Mathematics, Sciences. Kids should be able to be in Stream 1 for English yet Stream 2 for Mathematics, and mingle with other students for other subjects.
This get rids of elitism and encourages mingling of students of different abilities in the same class, notwithstanding that they are streamed for others.
C. The secondary school curriculum should emphasis learning more than exams. This means that we should base end-of-year results less on exams than on class projects. Sure, continue the class tests to measure abilities, but also place equal if not more emphasis on projects, where knowledge from different disciplines is applied. We can always shift gear to the GCSE exam mode two years before actual date of the exam.
In these class projects, one can introduce an entrepreneurial bias e.g. new products/services that will improve our lives, innovative ways to raise funds for charity, to nurture and encourage creativity
D. Consider replacing A-Levels with the International Baccalaureate (IB) system. It is well recognised that IB is a more holistic form education which includes a good emphasis of application of learning (e.g. in assessed projects) as opposed to just learning itself.
6. Educate general public on entrepreneurship
In the early 80's, I remembered John Cleese of the Monty Python fame, doing corporate videos on business management. These were immensely entertaining and were targeted towards people who wanted to learn the basic fundamentals of running a business. It was delivered in a casual and humorous way, which probably accounts for its success.We can do a similar one focusing on running your own business, starring Gurmit Singh. There are discrete topics probably to do an 8 part series, starting from identifying opportunities, to financing a business to managing cash flow. Air it on TV, in Mandarin, in Malay, in English, get people engaged through its humorous delivery.
Complementing this could be 8-10 week programmes in entrepreneurial management, which could be offered along the lines of the WSTP programmes offered by SPEC/SHRI currently. I'd be happy to contribute towards the development of such a programme if required.
7. Continue to publicise entrepreneurial role models
Don't just focus on Sim Won Hoo, but also middle of the road entrepreneurs too, even the successful Muthu's curry and Ya-Kun Kaya Toast owner. Focus on the phoenixes too. Get them to speak of the difficulties they faced along the way, not just their successes, to prepare their audience for the challenges ahead.
Friday, November 10, 2000
Archive: Today, Too Late?
Article discussing impact of Today, a new Singapore tabloid, on the Singapore media market. Edited version published in Business Times on 10 November, 2000.
If you've been walking down a number of MRT stations these last few days, you can't miss the bright yellow bins which await the arrival of Today, the new free newspaper launched by Mediacorp,Singtel Yellow Pages and SMRT. Mediacorp's publicity machine has rolled into full swing, courtesy of its subsidiaries TCS and RCS. But more telling is the comparative silence of the newspapers owned by their media rivals, Singapore Press Holdings. The battle of the media giants has begun, or has it?
To SPH, the launch of Today must seem less a battle than a skirmish. This is definitely not Normandy for them, more like a small outpost in the sub-Saharan desert. Even the venerable Goldman Sachs seems to think so, judging by their bullish comments on SPH on Wednesday.
Credit to SPH: They moved quickly to isolate the assault by Today. Immediately upon digesting the announcement of a rival free newspaper, the SPH team moved swiftly to pre-empt Today's launch by itself launching two new newspapers, Streats and Project Eyeball. The former, a free newspaper too, was probably a direct reaction to Today; Project Eyeball however, was probably already in the skunkworks. Net result? Today has now to contend with not just one but three other rivals chasing the same advertising dollars: The New Paper, Streats and Project Eyeball.
From an advertising pie of $x, Today's potential share fell from $x/2 to $x/4 overnight (the advertising pie destined to be shared between The New Paper and Today only is now shared between The New Paper, Today, Streats and Project Eyeball). I recall from my O Level economics days, this being called the brand proliferation strategy, practised by the Unilevers and Procter & Gambles of this world, to limit the assault of independent brands. The idea is for the incumbent to flood the market with different brands, so that new entrants will be limited to a smaller market share. Classic strategy stuff.
But there is yet another reason why it's crucial for SPH to contain the fighting ground at the The New Paper type level. In the same way that an aircraft carrier is flanked by cruisers and destroyers, The New Paper, Streats and Project Eyeball are flanking the mothership, none other than the cash cow of The Straits Times itself. Let's keep the enemy busy fighting our flankers, and move the fighting ground as far away from the mothership as possible. Kinda like our national air defence strategy.
I would venture a guess that more than 80% of the profit of all the SPH newspapers combined is derived from just two papers – The Straits Times and the The Business Times (together with their week-end editions). The New Paper probably at best makes a marginal profit. So when Today launches an assault on The New Paper market, it’s missing the point. And for good measure, SPH has also deployed the flankers, Streats and Project Eyeball, to contain it.
So Today will have a tough job on its hands. It enters a segment which is already only marginally profitable for the incumbent, and not only that, it now has to fight for share for that segment against not just one, but three other opponents. I’d always root for the underdog (particularly if their opponent is a former monopolist), but this time, I have to admit I’m not optimistic. I guess it’s left to someone else to figure out SPH’s vulnerable nerve. So, who’s going to assault Normandy?
Post-script: 9 months later, Today appears to have made a successful entry into the newspaper marketplace. Its short news summaries, tabloid format and freeness has enabled it to garner a good amount of advertising. Project Eyeball is now defunct whilst Streats and Today are still battling in the MRTs.
If you've been walking down a number of MRT stations these last few days, you can't miss the bright yellow bins which await the arrival of Today, the new free newspaper launched by Mediacorp,Singtel Yellow Pages and SMRT. Mediacorp's publicity machine has rolled into full swing, courtesy of its subsidiaries TCS and RCS. But more telling is the comparative silence of the newspapers owned by their media rivals, Singapore Press Holdings. The battle of the media giants has begun, or has it?
To SPH, the launch of Today must seem less a battle than a skirmish. This is definitely not Normandy for them, more like a small outpost in the sub-Saharan desert. Even the venerable Goldman Sachs seems to think so, judging by their bullish comments on SPH on Wednesday.
Credit to SPH: They moved quickly to isolate the assault by Today. Immediately upon digesting the announcement of a rival free newspaper, the SPH team moved swiftly to pre-empt Today's launch by itself launching two new newspapers, Streats and Project Eyeball. The former, a free newspaper too, was probably a direct reaction to Today; Project Eyeball however, was probably already in the skunkworks. Net result? Today has now to contend with not just one but three other rivals chasing the same advertising dollars: The New Paper, Streats and Project Eyeball.
From an advertising pie of $x, Today's potential share fell from $x/2 to $x/4 overnight (the advertising pie destined to be shared between The New Paper and Today only is now shared between The New Paper, Today, Streats and Project Eyeball). I recall from my O Level economics days, this being called the brand proliferation strategy, practised by the Unilevers and Procter & Gambles of this world, to limit the assault of independent brands. The idea is for the incumbent to flood the market with different brands, so that new entrants will be limited to a smaller market share. Classic strategy stuff.
But there is yet another reason why it's crucial for SPH to contain the fighting ground at the The New Paper type level. In the same way that an aircraft carrier is flanked by cruisers and destroyers, The New Paper, Streats and Project Eyeball are flanking the mothership, none other than the cash cow of The Straits Times itself. Let's keep the enemy busy fighting our flankers, and move the fighting ground as far away from the mothership as possible. Kinda like our national air defence strategy.
I would venture a guess that more than 80% of the profit of all the SPH newspapers combined is derived from just two papers – The Straits Times and the The Business Times (together with their week-end editions). The New Paper probably at best makes a marginal profit. So when Today launches an assault on The New Paper market, it’s missing the point. And for good measure, SPH has also deployed the flankers, Streats and Project Eyeball, to contain it.
So Today will have a tough job on its hands. It enters a segment which is already only marginally profitable for the incumbent, and not only that, it now has to fight for share for that segment against not just one, but three other opponents. I’d always root for the underdog (particularly if their opponent is a former monopolist), but this time, I have to admit I’m not optimistic. I guess it’s left to someone else to figure out SPH’s vulnerable nerve. So, who’s going to assault Normandy?
Post-script: 9 months later, Today appears to have made a successful entry into the newspaper marketplace. Its short news summaries, tabloid format and freeness has enabled it to garner a good amount of advertising. Project Eyeball is now defunct whilst Streats and Today are still battling in the MRTs.
Saturday, October 14, 2000
Beggar thy neighbour!
Article written from the perspective of a Malaysian, published in Malaysia's The Sun, in connection with Senior Minister's Lee Kuan Yew's visit to Kuala Lumpur on Oct 2000. Note that estimates of potential economic value will not pass muster with my ex-BCG colleagues - they were finger-in-the-sky numbers for purposes of drawing attention to the magnitude of potential gains.
In our dealings with trade and economic issues with our ASEAN neighbours, our official response towards questions about potential intra-ASEAN competition has been "prosper, not beggar, thy neighbour". The theory is that the economic advancement of a particular country would benefit the economy of its neighbours as increased economic activity translates into higher demand for goods and services from neighbouring countries.
Indeed, this phrase at a basic level forms the underpinnings of the World Trade Organisation and the free trade movement. And judging by the number of times Prime Minister Dr. Mahathir has used this phrase in the media, it appears to be a central tenet of our official trade policy.
Except of course when it comes to Singapore and Malaysia's trade relations. In many aspects of the trade relations between the two countries, the converse seems to be at work - "beggar, not prosper, thy neighbour". So in many spheres, Malaysia and Singapore apparently compete head on. Both Malaysia and Singapore profess to being the Asia's leading centre for shipping, finance, education, air transport, shopping, tourism… the list goes on.
So we have comparisons made between KLIA vs Changi Airport, Westport and Tanjung Pelepas vs Tanjung Pagar Port Terminal, KLCC vs Raffles Place, MSC vs Suntec City, MAS vs SIA, Mesdaq vs Sesdaq, and for the shoppers among us, Bukit Bintang vs Orchard Road.
Why do we not apply the same prosper thy neighbour policy to Singapore? Historical baggage (and being reminded of it by Lee Kuan Yew in The Singapore Story) does not help. Maybe envy too, after all, didn't Malaysia have all the resources whilst Singapore had none, yet Singapore has already achieved developed nation status, whereas we're still wondering whether we'll make it by 2020? Add to this the need to appeal to domestic voters, the other turns out to be a great bogeyman. And it's easy isn't it to mask our own weaknesses by attributing Singapore's success to its alleged kiasuness (good heavens, we're not like that at all). So no wonder we get ensnared into issues such as the CIQ facilities for Malaysian customs, impasse over renewal of water supply agreements, delay of privatisation of Malayan Railway because of impasse on status of its land bank in Singapore.
More than we care to admit, however, Malaysia and Singapore's economies are highly interdependent. Singaporean companies are one of our largest foreign direct investors, our stockmarket feels the non-participation of Singapore's retail investors, our land prices are dependent on demand from Singapore.
But more importantly, by not cooperating, both countries leave untapped a tremendous amount of potential economic value, value that can only be generated through cooperation (at first cut, we are foregoing at least RM 250 billion in potential economic value, maybe more - see table)
Let's take an example. It's fairly undisputed that Singapore has the world's busiest port. It has the world's most advanced cargo handling and port management facilities, where goods are cleared even before they arrive at the port. It's positioning itself to become the Asia's logistics hub.
A beggar thy neighbour trade policy will provoke the following knee-jerk reaction " Dammit, they're becoming the leader in shipping. All our cargo is going through their ports, and we're losing valuable foreign exchange. We must build new ports to counter this threat, and we must force Malaysian shippers to use Malaysian ports to make them economically viable"
You will notice that this reaction pervades our transport policy, and therein lies the rationale for the existence of Tanjung Pelepas and Westport.
A smarter way to approach this issue is to say. "OK, granted. Singapore is the world leader in shipping and port management. We could try to compete with them but it's not easy to beat them at their own game. But you know what? We could position ourselves to benefit from their leadership in shipping and port management. They lack land for warehousing facilities, as land in Singapore is scarce. What if we were to provide warehousing facilities for Singapore ports? After all we have plentiful land in just across the border in Gelang Patah." Potential economic gain: RM20 billion.
"Hmmmm. Why stick at warehousing? Let's be really creative with this. Oh yeah, there's a railway track that goes all the way from Thailand to just 100 meters away from Singapore's Tanjong Pagar Port Terminal. Let's take advantage of Singapore's leading position as the transhipment hub of Asia to transport goods to and from Tanjong Pagar all the way up to Thailand. If it makes economic sense for Thai shippers, then we will have a great business charging for use of our railway services ". Potential economic gain: RM 20 billion
" Why stop at railways and warehousing? Let's develop a special free trade zone in Gelang Patah where goods are free to move between Gelang Patah in Johor and Tuas in Singapore without any customs, and people are free to move without any passports (do this by relocating current Second Link immigration checkpoints 5 miles further North on the highway) Why? So that goods can be warehoused in Gelang Patah without any worries about custom or immigration delays. Oh, whilst we're at it, there's a whole bunch of multinational electronics factories based in Tuas near the Singapore border that would love to take advantage of our vast land area and large labour pool to build new factories there. Especially if there were no border controls. More jobs, more foreign investment, more economic growth." Potential economic gain: RM20 billion.
These are not the only areas where Malaysia and Singapore together can create tremendous economic value where previously there were none. The development of high speed commuter railways from Malaysia to Singapore will enable Malaysia to attract many foreign professionals currently working in Singapore (they number 1 million people) to reside in Malaysia, increasing demand for residential properties and goods and services here. The increase of direct flights from Singapore to popular recreational destinations in Malaysia will enable the expatriate population in Singapore to spend week-end tourism dollars in Malaysia, boosting our tourism industry and foreign exchange. The list goes on (please see accompanying table http://www.geocities.com/malek_ali/beggar2.html).
If one were to hazard a guess as to the economic value of a prosper thy neighbour policy, this could amount to well in excess of RM250 billion to be shared between Singapore and Malaysia. Not a bad sum just for being good neighbours.
In our dealings with trade and economic issues with our ASEAN neighbours, our official response towards questions about potential intra-ASEAN competition has been "prosper, not beggar, thy neighbour". The theory is that the economic advancement of a particular country would benefit the economy of its neighbours as increased economic activity translates into higher demand for goods and services from neighbouring countries.
Indeed, this phrase at a basic level forms the underpinnings of the World Trade Organisation and the free trade movement. And judging by the number of times Prime Minister Dr. Mahathir has used this phrase in the media, it appears to be a central tenet of our official trade policy.
Except of course when it comes to Singapore and Malaysia's trade relations. In many aspects of the trade relations between the two countries, the converse seems to be at work - "beggar, not prosper, thy neighbour". So in many spheres, Malaysia and Singapore apparently compete head on. Both Malaysia and Singapore profess to being the Asia's leading centre for shipping, finance, education, air transport, shopping, tourism… the list goes on.
So we have comparisons made between KLIA vs Changi Airport, Westport and Tanjung Pelepas vs Tanjung Pagar Port Terminal, KLCC vs Raffles Place, MSC vs Suntec City, MAS vs SIA, Mesdaq vs Sesdaq, and for the shoppers among us, Bukit Bintang vs Orchard Road.
Why do we not apply the same prosper thy neighbour policy to Singapore? Historical baggage (and being reminded of it by Lee Kuan Yew in The Singapore Story) does not help. Maybe envy too, after all, didn't Malaysia have all the resources whilst Singapore had none, yet Singapore has already achieved developed nation status, whereas we're still wondering whether we'll make it by 2020? Add to this the need to appeal to domestic voters, the other turns out to be a great bogeyman. And it's easy isn't it to mask our own weaknesses by attributing Singapore's success to its alleged kiasuness (good heavens, we're not like that at all). So no wonder we get ensnared into issues such as the CIQ facilities for Malaysian customs, impasse over renewal of water supply agreements, delay of privatisation of Malayan Railway because of impasse on status of its land bank in Singapore.
More than we care to admit, however, Malaysia and Singapore's economies are highly interdependent. Singaporean companies are one of our largest foreign direct investors, our stockmarket feels the non-participation of Singapore's retail investors, our land prices are dependent on demand from Singapore.
But more importantly, by not cooperating, both countries leave untapped a tremendous amount of potential economic value, value that can only be generated through cooperation (at first cut, we are foregoing at least RM 250 billion in potential economic value, maybe more - see table)
Let's take an example. It's fairly undisputed that Singapore has the world's busiest port. It has the world's most advanced cargo handling and port management facilities, where goods are cleared even before they arrive at the port. It's positioning itself to become the Asia's logistics hub.
A beggar thy neighbour trade policy will provoke the following knee-jerk reaction " Dammit, they're becoming the leader in shipping. All our cargo is going through their ports, and we're losing valuable foreign exchange. We must build new ports to counter this threat, and we must force Malaysian shippers to use Malaysian ports to make them economically viable"
You will notice that this reaction pervades our transport policy, and therein lies the rationale for the existence of Tanjung Pelepas and Westport.
A smarter way to approach this issue is to say. "OK, granted. Singapore is the world leader in shipping and port management. We could try to compete with them but it's not easy to beat them at their own game. But you know what? We could position ourselves to benefit from their leadership in shipping and port management. They lack land for warehousing facilities, as land in Singapore is scarce. What if we were to provide warehousing facilities for Singapore ports? After all we have plentiful land in just across the border in Gelang Patah." Potential economic gain: RM20 billion.
"Hmmmm. Why stick at warehousing? Let's be really creative with this. Oh yeah, there's a railway track that goes all the way from Thailand to just 100 meters away from Singapore's Tanjong Pagar Port Terminal. Let's take advantage of Singapore's leading position as the transhipment hub of Asia to transport goods to and from Tanjong Pagar all the way up to Thailand. If it makes economic sense for Thai shippers, then we will have a great business charging for use of our railway services ". Potential economic gain: RM 20 billion
" Why stop at railways and warehousing? Let's develop a special free trade zone in Gelang Patah where goods are free to move between Gelang Patah in Johor and Tuas in Singapore without any customs, and people are free to move without any passports (do this by relocating current Second Link immigration checkpoints 5 miles further North on the highway) Why? So that goods can be warehoused in Gelang Patah without any worries about custom or immigration delays. Oh, whilst we're at it, there's a whole bunch of multinational electronics factories based in Tuas near the Singapore border that would love to take advantage of our vast land area and large labour pool to build new factories there. Especially if there were no border controls. More jobs, more foreign investment, more economic growth." Potential economic gain: RM20 billion.
These are not the only areas where Malaysia and Singapore together can create tremendous economic value where previously there were none. The development of high speed commuter railways from Malaysia to Singapore will enable Malaysia to attract many foreign professionals currently working in Singapore (they number 1 million people) to reside in Malaysia, increasing demand for residential properties and goods and services here. The increase of direct flights from Singapore to popular recreational destinations in Malaysia will enable the expatriate population in Singapore to spend week-end tourism dollars in Malaysia, boosting our tourism industry and foreign exchange. The list goes on (please see accompanying table http://www.geocities.com/malek_ali/beggar2.html).
If one were to hazard a guess as to the economic value of a prosper thy neighbour policy, this could amount to well in excess of RM250 billion to be shared between Singapore and Malaysia. Not a bad sum just for being good neighbours.
Monday, August 14, 2000
Damn the commuters!
Article posted on a KL environmental watchgroup online forum sometime in the fall of 2000, in response to a plea for ideas and solutions to KL traffic woes
Our current approach to resolving the traffic congestion problems in KL is driven by 2 elements:1. Attack the symptoms (hey, if there's a lot more cars on the road, we should build a lot more roads right?) 2. Let's make some money doing it (If Renong can do it with the North South highway, why can't we?)
Hence the flurry of toll highway projects, and the creation of a business culture based on a toll-gate mentality (water, sewage, LRT projects are all also built on this business culture - get the concession first and then charge consumers an arm and a leg for it).
Lest I sound like just a whinger, let me propose an action plan: Attack the root cause, not the symptom.
The root cause of traffic congestion, I contend, is the lack of alternative transport. Hey, I used to live in Ulu Klang, and I wanna get to Bukit Bintang. Sorry friend, LRT does not serve Bukit Bintang (yet its the most popular shopping area!). We don't need more roads, we need more LRT stops at the relevant places. C'mon, it does not require Einstein to figure out we need an LRT stop at Bukit Bintang, unless we're trying to change decades old pattern of KL residents behaviour. So the net result: streams of cars containing only one passenger i.e. the driver heading in and out of KL, day in, day out.
The problem is a comprehensive MRT/LRT network costs a lot of money. So if you notice, we took the cheap way out and built along ex-railway land. Cheap methods yield cheap results (all you architects out there will agree). And Star-LRT has the temerity to wonder aloud why passenger traffic levels are not what they forecasted! (Kawan, your routes do not go anywhere useful, duh!).
So, Action Step 1 : Build a comprehensive MRT/LRT network
Let's lay down one inalienable fact. Passenger transport systems are NOT profitable. Whether its Japanese bullet trains or London Underground, other countries' experience tells us that the private sector ain't gonna make money out of this. (So why is Putra, Star-LRT, PLRT in this business in the first place? - well, as I said, it's a concession driven business culture, therefore, get the concession first, spend some arm-twisted banker's money on lucrative procurement contracts second, and then worry about the operations last).
So whaddawe do? Hate to say this folks, but we gotta spend some taxpayer's money. We've got to give Putra and Star a subsidy to operate the existing network. They're both head over heels in the red, and eventhough the systems ain't ideal, we have to save it. Either taxpayers pay off their construction loans so that they can at least maintain a profitable operation (the Singapore MRT approach), or we have to give them a subsidy every year to operate those lines (the UK British Rail approach). In return, taxpayers should get full disclosure of operational finances. So:
Action Step 2: Save Putra and Star-LRT
What about PLRT monorail? Well figure out the passenger traffic capacity of those things. If they are as I suspect unable to carry high passenger levels, scrap the whole damn shebang. Right now it's still possible to stop that project, obliterate all those gargantuan landscape blighters (you know those concrete pillar monstrosities in the middle of town which do nothing but advertise Digi phones), and let PLRT figure out how to sort their loans with their bankers. Sorry, no taxpayers money for this one as the usefulness of the project is not proven.
So, Action step 3: Scrap PLRT
So no PLRT means no access to BUkit Bintang and Raja Chulan/Sultan Ismail right? Wrong. Next we need to get a true blue transport specialist to study commuter patterns in the Klang valley area and propose an ideal case (i.e. if we had all the money in the world, this would be the rail routes). Then let's sit down and decide the trade-offs that we will have to make. It will have to involve a lot of tunnelling, which means that a lot of prep work would have to be done beforehand e.g. redirection of sewage tunnels, power lines, telecom lines, etc. Yes, this is the kind of project that separates the men from the boys. And all those urban/city planners will have to get off their comfortable armchairs and get their hands dirty. Let's not kid ourselves - it will cost a lot of $$$$$$$ - but so long as this does not go to private pockets, it's money well worth spending.
And to speed up the process, maybe us concerned citizens can do one thing. Let's get a quotation from several of these transportation specialists as to how much would a comprehensive transportation planning study cost. Then let's approach Petronas to sponsor this plan (or HSBC since their corporate theme is saving the environment) . We then nominate one of our best private sector urban planners to lead the planning process with the chosen transportation specialists.
Once we've got the blueprint, then let's say to the federal government "hiya folks, here's a solution, signed off and approved by us, the Klang valley residents. You wanna one of your cronies to implement it? Fine. We don't mind you spending our taxpayer's money on this, but we know the costings so don't mess around."
So, Action step no. 4 : Get sponsorship of a comprehensive transportation study for the Klang valley.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
