Singapore Angle: Perspectives: Comments

Comment on "The Foreign Donor Bogeyman"

Mon, 25 May 2009 10:33:09 +0800

Hi Ringisei

IANAL! - I liked that disclaimer right at the start! The clear cut one is foreign donations to political entities. That is a clear No. The real debate perhaps is whether activists can receive foreign money. I think it is "why not", it is just a matter of how, who etc. Also, if there are no laws restricting foreign donations to local activists, based on their track record, the PAP might even pass a bill on it soon if they are that insecure. I hope they don't though.

- Lau Ah Pek

Comment on "The Foreign Donor Bogeyman"

Mon, 25 May 2009 09:21:02 +0800

IANAL but it seems that it is not illegal for activists to receive foreign donations. See the definition of 'political associations' under the interpretation section of the Political Donations Act (Cap 236). IMHO it's got more potential to be a PR issue instead.

- ringisei

Comment on "the very fierce Mai word"

Fri, 10 Apr 2009 09:32:23 +0800

Huichieh, thanks for your inputs and looking all this up! Thanks to talkingcock's dictionary, there's quite a bit of information about Hokkien words and phrases in English but still lots of questions about how to write the words in Chinese characters and their origins/evolution, even/esp for Hokkien words that are casually used all the time.

- ringisei

Comment on "the very fierce Mai word"

Thu, 09 Apr 2009 11:24:25 +0800

More gris for the mill: Turns out that 勿 is pronounced with a m- (and ends with a -t) both in Old and at least Early Middle Chinese (Karlgren 503a). And 愛 maintains a pronunciation pretty much in the region of ai (losing a harder -d ending of the Old) in the same periods (ibid 508a). Maybe it's all a big coincidence but I can't help thinking...

- Huichieh

Comment on "the very fierce Mai word"

Thu, 09 Apr 2009 01:16:40 +0800

Random thoughts: 勿 (standardly pronounced wu, 4th tone) is (Classical/Literary) Chinese for the imperative "not", i.e., "don't". The Hokkien mai, on the other hand, can also be indicative. When I say that wa mai X, I do mean to say that I don't want X; I'm not commanding myself not to want X. [Contrast mai gei = [you] don't pretend / stop pretending; which is in the imperative.] Considering that 愛 is pronounced ai in Hokkien, I'm wondering if mai is a contraction of 勿+愛.

- Huichieh

Comment on "You think, I thought, FP confirmed"

Mon, 16 Mar 2009 09:04:35 +0800

NTU's RSIS Commentaries are pretty good. I am not surprised that RSIS actually ranks as one of the top 10 Asian Think Tanks. RSIS does a lot of useful Track II work, but isn't SIIA the foremost Singapore think tank in that area?

The writing quality of RSIS Commentaries far exceeds that of Knowledge@SMU (which is also worse than Knowledge@Wharton, Knowledge@Emory and Knowledge@INSEAD).

I think LKY SPP has too many sub-think-tanks/institutes under its umbrella to really do anything useful. LKY SPP is not going to be the RAND of Southeast Asia unless it can engage Singaporeans meaningfully at home first.

- Donaldson Tan

Comment on "Using the Copyright Act to Strangle the Blogosphere"

Sat, 14 Feb 2009 11:23:27 +0800

Thanks for citing my blog entry - I read this article for its content and only realised I was referred to after reading - thanks for the pleasant surprise.

As for the issue of copyright infringement, I would think the (lazy) mainstream reporters are having a dearth of ideas and have resorted to trawling our very blogs for fodder to spin (to their advantage of course) in the print paper(s).

That being the case, allowing bloggers to cut-and-paste ST material would be a necessary evil (from their perspective) that enables them to feed on the content we create.

In any case, the backlash of throwing the Copyright Act at bloggers might be a significant drop in (free) material for the ST to use through the postings on STOMP as well.

So I think the blogosphere is safe - for the time being....

[Admin: This comment was wrongly caught by the spam filters.]

- Ganga

Comment on "The Job Credits Scheme as a Perverse Incentive"

Sat, 14 Feb 2009 06:59:28 +0800

Thanks, KTM. And apologies for having to make you re-fry some of your char kway teow until chow tar. :)

Splitting payroll. Agree. Also there's the cost of paying one's CPF contribution and employer's contribution into another person's account.

Quantification. Come to think of it, it's also a bit like TV or print ads. Most of the time the ad buyer can't quantify exactly what the direct effect of advertisement on sales is (yeah, got special phone number, web URL etc. but not as targetted as pay per click) but does it mean that companies should never buy TV or print ads?

Second shot. Also a good point. Some of the SME owners I've been talking to have worried that too many things in the current budget 'gahmen can easily take back' and are just going to go ahead as if whatever goodies there are don't exist. And I won't bet beer against your call of not more than 3 shots either. ;)

- ringisei

Comment on "The Job Credits Scheme as a Perverse Incentive"

Sat, 14 Feb 2009 01:34:27 +0800

Agree that the policy has the possibility of giving rise to unintended perverse "moral-hazard"-like behaviour. Most policies have that risk. However, it is not clear that you've highlighted the possible issues.

Firstly, as highlighted by one lady MP (can't remember who), in the short term, employers could split up their payrolls. Anyone paid, say $3,000 a month, would have their pay reduced to $2,500. New employees (their wives, old enough chewrens, their siblings, auntie, uncle etc etc.) could be brought in to take up the extra $500. The taxpayer ends up having to fork out an extra $60 a month.

Not likely. Hiring and firing got cost. The extra effort is unlikely to be worth $60.

Secondly, as it has been commonly pointed out, JCS may have completely zero effect on employers' decisions.

Agreed, but this is not a perverse incentive issue. The risk that it doesn't work is that as the KTM conceded in his post. Note that even if it doesn't affect the employer's decision, it does inject some cash into the existing businesses and help them out in staying afloat. Think of JCS as a tax cut brought forward.

The KTM already highlighted that it's IMPOSSIBLE to quantify the effectiveness of the JCS and explained why.

Thirdly, leading on from the second point, it has been said that gratitude is merely the lively expectation of future favours. JCS may be temporary, gahmen say for one year only, but carrots are often harder to rescind than sticks - suppose this recession doesn't blow over in a year, guess what will firms say?

Also responded to this post in a comment in some post somewhere. KTM cannot keep track.

The KTM suspects that the Gahmen would be prepare to give another shot of JCS in a year if the recession doesn't lift and the unemployment numbers for locals are low enough, i.e. they probably have some projections of unemployment w.o. JCS and if what we get is significantly lower than that number, the Gahmen is likely to declare that JCS works and give another booster shot.

Actually, one can argue that for the JCS to work, the employers must believe that the Gahmen is willing to give a booster JCS shot. In fact, if the KTM were the Finance Minister, he would definitely announce that Gahmen is prepared to go for a second round. Why? Such announcements are FREE. If companies buy, JCS is more likely to succeed. If JCS fails, it's okay, can still bail out by whipping up public objections against the JCS (kaypohs like Lucky Tan and Siew Kum Hoong will come in useful), and then reluctantly and regretfully announce to the businesses he had to eat his words because the people object. It's a win-win situation. :-P

Conversely, if JCS is retained for too long, it may become embedded as a structural distortion to the labour market.

Won't lah. The KTM predicts maximally 3 shots, not likely more than two. :-)

- Kway Teow Man

Comment on "Using the Copyright Act to Strangle the Blogosphere"

Fri, 13 Feb 2009 22:39:09 +0800

I very much doubt that Mr Wang's lawyerly powers are why he, and others, happily cut and paste. My guess is that it's probably more down to most assuming that SPH would not know for sure who (as in a real name rather than a pseudonym) to serve the infringement notice to.

Thanks for your interest. Here's the feed (it's also available via the right column on the SA main page): http://feeds.feedburner.com/SingaporeAnglePerspectives

- ringisei

Comment on "Using the Copyright Act to Strangle the Blogosphere"

Fri, 13 Feb 2009 19:30:05 +0800

That's an excellent question that has come up to my mind every now and then, when I see blogs "re-publish" articles wholesale. I always thought that there's some copyright issues involved, but then again, after seeing Mr Wang Say So do it, I thought it should be in the clear because Mr Wang is a lawyer, and he ought to know his stuff...

Anyway, I think the main issue is that they will have face backlash if they force people to remove their articles, as you've mentioned.

By the way, does SA: Perspective have a feed? It's kinda hard to keep track of updates, which explains why this reply is so late.

- Jackson Tan

Comment on "Tocqueville on the ABS"

Tue, 03 Feb 2009 19:12:48 +0800

"He might have added: When, in Singapore, Gahmen form something, they comprain interference in their lives. When prominent Singaporeans cobble together some random group, they cry elitism. When ordinary folks do the same, lots of other people laugh and say they will never amount to anything."

Well said. I couldn't have said it better, especially the last line.

- Aaron Ng

Comment on "Mahbubani on Rule By Law"

Sun, 25 Jan 2009 20:33:40 +0800

Interesting...I'm pretty sure we'll have to include Singapore as part of the 'Asia' he speaks of :)

And I am not so sure that N. Korea and Myanmar's ruling elites do not entirely use the rule of law effectively wrt to their respective political motivations and agendas.

After all, you do get to hear about bloggers in Myanmar being sentenced to life imprisonment plus 8 years...but guess I am ignoring the 'modern' part of his arguments :)

- ted

Comment on "The 229-page AIMS report recommends maturity and common sense"

Mon, 08 Dec 2008 00:03:41 +0800

"Despite the hype and "potential", the Internet has not changed the complexion of local politics as much as some people hope. Even excluding the media restrictions, there already are more than enough restrictions in the system to curb enthusiasm for the cut and thrust of politics."

Particularly with Speakers' Corner also a protest corner, all the more reason the regulation of supposed political rhetoric in the Internet is anachronistic. Also I agree, the existing penal code is more than adequate to handle any real mischief, political or not, in and out of the Internet.

Lau Ah Pek

- The Void Deck

Comment on "Pad Thai Democracy"

Sun, 07 Dec 2008 23:59:57 +0800

Hi Chee

"we need to remember that in thailand, the democratically-imperfect government was toppled by forces which sought not to ensure democracy but to subvert it instead. In singapore, anti-government powers are headed by people who seek democracy."

Touché!

But still, who knows? With the benefit of hindsight, in Thailand after Thaksin and before Samak, "the anti-government powers are headed by people who seek democracy" as well.

Lau Ah Pek

- The Void Deck

Comment on "Pad Thai Democracy"

Thu, 04 Dec 2008 16:05:33 +0800

Should we close one eye if the regime is not democratically perfect but they deliver generally?

The Thailand story suggests as though we should indeed close an eye.

Yet, if the same question is applied to singapore, where we are not democratically perfect and our leaders deliver spectacularly, what will be the answer?

Right now, the opponents of the PAP are demanding that we ought not to close an eye.

If the answer to the thailand question is yes, is the answer to the singapore question yes too?

To overcome this paradox. we need to remember that in thailand, the democratically-imperfect government was toppled by forces which sought not to ensure democracy but to subvert it instead.

In singapore, anti-government powers are headed by people who seek democracy.

So I guess that one should not distill the general question of whether we should ignore flaws in democracy from the thailand case study, as the article did.

Good article though.

- Chee

Comment on "Strike Eagle or Struck Turkey?"

Wed, 03 Dec 2008 11:38:16 +0800

Very interesting discussion on a topic that I am totally unfamiliar with, and Ringisei, clever funny title! So in the end, what does it mean for RSAF modernisation? Should we get more strike/air superiority planes as they are more sexy and punchy for the sake of the appearance of deterrence, or should more resources be devoted to "uncool" areas like air defence systems or Air Power Generation Command as reported recently? How is the tightrope walked?

- Lau Ah Pek

Comment on "Strike Eagle or Struck Turkey?"

Sat, 29 Nov 2008 02:46:00 +0800

As for the number of aircraft, there are two points to note:

1. the A-4SU is a single-seater while the F-15E is a two-seater. Hence, the pilot manpower requirement for 24 F-15E's is actually greater than that for 40 A-4SU's. I personally doubt that the RSAF will acquire that many more F-15E's if any at all.

2. the F-15E can carry about 11,000 kg of external payload while the A-4SU can carry about 4,500 kg of external payload.

"However, I am also reminded of how less glamorous RSAF assets such as helicopters (especially the Chinooks), refueling tankers (KC-135) and transport aircraft (like the C-130) have been in rather more demand for UN peacekeeping (e.g. Timor Leste), coalition operations (Ops Blue Orchid in Iraq) as well as humanitarian assistance and disaster relief (Ops Flying Eagle for the 2004 tsunami)."

Refueling and aerial transport aircraft can also be used for extending the range of fighter/strike aircraft and for airlifting troops/military equipment respectively. Hence, they are no less threatening to our neighbours than fighter aircraft.

- Fox

Comment on "Strike Eagle or Struck Turkey?"

Fri, 28 Nov 2008 08:19:23 +0800

Loy and Fox, thanks for your points.

24 may not be the final number. The original number mentioned in Dr Loo's chapter was 12; the Pentagon's notifications to Congress have only dealt with pilot training, munitions etc but not the actual aircraft themselves so we'll have to wait and see. 80 seems a bit much though.

Regarding tsunami relief, my impression was that our Chinooks played an important role throughout, esp for heavy lift, but the US contribution was, to put it mildly, considerable. And from what my friends told me, our assets were also very stretched.

Grateful for enlightening me on strike vs. air superiority.

What are the possibilities of the emergence of fundamentally disruptive technologies that renders fighter-bombers less useful/more vulnerable?

- ringisei

Comment on "Strike Eagle or Struck Turkey?"

Fri, 28 Nov 2008 04:39:33 +0800

The F-15SG is a derivative and not a mere copy of the original F-15. Whilst the USAF are going to replace their F-15C/D's with F-22's, there are no plans to phase out their F-15E's.

"Fit for purpose? The F-15SGs will be keen to generating the type of conventional airpower required for the RSAF's core mission of deterring potential aggressors."

Yes. More specifically, the F-15SG is to serve as a strike fighter. The RSAF is not going to use it as an air superiority platform but as a strike aircraft. In other words, it will be used to bomb ground targets, which was the role played by the A-4SU's.

Talk about it being leapfrogged by the F-22 doesn't quite jive. The F-22 is an air superiority platform, not a strike fighter.

- Fox