"The purpose of my position of influence was surely to speak up for those who have no influence."

Dr Susan Lim

Is there hope for Generation Y?

Having breakfast with a former MBA classmate at a local coffee shop, we caught up over our runny eggs and nonya laksa, he broached topic of Generation Y.

Boy, did he talk to the right person.

Not that I am the definitive authority on this topic, but that this is something close to my heart both in academic research and in practice.

'There is no hope for this generation!', he gesticulated emphatically. Mind you, he is a soft spoken person who hardly ever loses his temper. Yet, he more than flinched as we spoke.

I consistently get this reaction from those who are aged 35 and above, and have a role in managing or hiring post-1980 babies.

Then again, we have to see the other side of the spectrum.

My students, aged between 17 to 24, often put it to me that those who are not of their generation are 'backward' and 'not keeping up with the times'. The common trait that is mentioned is 'slow'.

And thus, you, as the reader, will realise that for post-1980 babies, speed is not an option --- it is an expectation.

This seems to mirror a study commissioned by the Tripartite Alliance for Fair Employment Practices in Singapore. It was found that younger interviewers favoured younger candidates over mature candidates. Once the interview panel consisted of mature and young interviewers, mature candidates had a 12% higher chance of being hired (Straits Times, 4 Nov 2011).

And so, on the one hand, experienced workers perceive that younger workers easily crumble under pressure and in the words of our country's founding father, 'footloose'. They are seen to be easily demoralised yet, highly confident of themselves and their abilities. 'Spoilt' is a word that is often brought up in my conversations with experienced workers.

On the other hand, the young ones see experienced workers as dated employees who simply stick to the status quo to safeguard their rice bowl. 'Uncreative and difficult to change', the young ones see mature workers as a liability rather than an asset. If they had it their way, they would like to populate their organization with Wii-playing, Crumpler toting, Rihanna listening peers.

People do not realise that both mature and younger workers want the same things in life --- financial stability, friendship, useful life experiences and time for themselves. Now, how each generational cohort seeks to achieve these things, is very different.

higher-faster-sports.com

I am against ageism --- the discrimination of those who are older in age; and reverse ageism --- the discrimination of of those who are young. It is unfortunate that in the Confucian paternalistic society that we belong to, it is the young who are at a disadvantage. However, the tide is turning and society is realising that they have to put aside their perceptions and bias to embrace their younger managers.

It will not be easy for Generation Y to become the established individuals they so want to be --- definitely not by next month. Many will suffer pain and some will crash dramatically and even take their own lives. But there will be those who will give the passage of time its place and bounce back to stand out amongst the others.

Both experienced and younger workers need to suspend their biases against each cohort. They need each other. The experiences of the Baby Boomers are valuable and can help guard against major mistakes in life. Younger workers bring lots of ideas and knowledge to the table, that can be very useful in improving the lives of Baby Boomers at work.


Concluding his argument against Generation Y, my friend declared, "I do not see any hope for this generation."

I paused for a while, and with a wink of my eye, I proposed, "I have hope for them."

Marketers, business people, listen to Bono...

"Some people say, 'Come on, markets are not about morals, they are about profits,'. I say that is old thinking. That's a false choice.

The great companies will be the ones that find a way to have and hold on to their values while chasing their profits, and brand value will converge to create a new business model that unites commerce and compassion. The heart and the wallet.

The great companies this century will be sharp to success and at the same time sensitive to the idea that you can't measure the true success of a company on a spreadsheet."

Bono

Did or did Lee Kuan Yew not use the 'V' word on Islam?

image from wikileaks.org

Singapore's former Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew has come out against a Wikileaks cable that alleges he "characterizes Islam as a venomous religion".

http://wikileaks.org/cable/2005/07/05SINGAPORE2073.html

The following is a press statement released by Mdm Yeong Yoon Ying, Press Secretary to Mr Lee Kuan Yew, on behalf of Mr Lee, 5 Sept 2011

"Wikileaks released a cable by the US Embassy in Singapore reporting on the visit of Senator Hillary Clinton to Singapore in Jul 2005. The cable claimed that in my meeting with Senator Clinton, I had “characterized Islam as a ‘venomous religion’”.

This is false. I looked up MFA’s filenote of the meeting. Nowhere does it record me describing Islam as “venomous”, nor did I say anything which could have given that impression.

I did talk about extremist terrorists like the Jemaah Islamiyah group, and the jihadist preachers who brainwashed them. They are implacable in wanting to put down all who do not agree with them. So their Islam is a perverted version, which the overwhelming majority of Muslims in Singapore do not subscribe to.

I also pointed out that our Muslim leaders are rational, and that the ultimate solution to extremist terrorism was to give moderate Muslims the courage to stand up and speak out against radicals who have hijacked Islam to recruit volunteers for their violent ends."


I would like to summarily explore the reactions of the immediate stakeholders to this situation and present my views on this issue.

We have Mr Lee Kuan Yew, Ms Hilary Clinton and Representative Charles Rangel who met to discuss various issues during the visit to Singapore in July 2005.

We also have the foreign office representatives from both the USA and Singapore who were present to take notes during the discussion

Finally, we have former Ambassador Frank Lavin who signed off the confidential cable.

In light of this incident, we might begin to see finger pointing at who purportedly said what and interpreted inaccurately.

Lee's clarification today has now thrown the ball into the American's court. They will shortly have to respond whether they agree with Lee or whether they stick to their guns. I foresee an interesting exchange between Clinton, Rangel and Lavin on what their response should be.

To cut the long story short, this cable was meant to be confidential and not made available for public viewing. It would be in the Americans' interest to respond by saying that they are not against Islam and that this was a misinterpretation on Ambassador Lavin's part, thus making him the fall guy.

But the question still remains - did Lee use the 'V' word or allude to it during their conversation?

Many would argue that since Lee recently commented in his book "Lee Kuan Yew: Hard truths to keep Singapore going" that the Malay-Muslim community is 'distinct and separate', where there is smoke, there has to be fire - and so Lee would have to be anti-Islam.

I was not privy to the conversation between Lee, Clinton and Rangel, buy my very uneducated gut feel says that Lee did not do such a thing.

Why not?

Too much to lose
Having built Singapore from nothing to a first world nation, it would be terribly uncharacteristic of Lee to speak against something he feels strongly for - racial and religious harmony. Singapore is surrounded by countries that have Islam as their state religion. It would not be in Lee's interest to make the alleged statement.

Walls have ears
In diplomatic circles (so I am aware), despite 'so-called' confidential 'off-the-record' conversations, people know that what they say can (or do not say) can come biting them in the behind. Home Team officers are trained to guard against saying more than they should during contact with their foreign counterparts.

To avoid being leveraged against by the Americans
If Lee did make such a statement, the Americans could easily use it to instigate neighbouring Islamic countries against Singapore and thus pressure Singapore to gain concessions for future negotiations. While it is in the Americans' interest to support Singapore in the region, the Americans have a close working relationship with Malaysia and Indonesia. Both are moderate Islamic countries and work intimately with the Americans in the fight against terrorism. One might think that such a situation is far fetched. To this, I say that one must not be naive. Such, can be the dark side of global politics.


I have worked for a Muslim boss, with Muslim colleagues, managed Muslim staff and taught Muslim students. I have had pleasant experiences working with them and some of my Muslim students are the brightest in their cohort.

I also do not believe that Lee used the 'V' word or alluded to it in the context of Islam.

As the reader, you have a right to disagree with my opinions and conclusions. However, one thing we must agree on is that we do not condemn any religion, especially those observed by Singaporeans.

Losing yourself in the pursuit of life

image from trutheran.blogspot.com

By David Brooks

Over the past few weeks, America’s colleges have sent another class of graduates off into the world. These graduates possess something of inestimable value. Nearly every sensible middle-aged person would give away all their money to be able to go back to age 22 and begin adulthood anew.

But, especially this year, one is conscious of the many ways in which this year’s graduating class has been ill served by their elders. They enter a bad job market, the hangover from decades of excessive borrowing. They inherit a ruinous federal debt.

More important, their lives have been perversely structured. This year’s graduates are members of the most supervised generation in American history. Through their childhoods and teenage years, they have been monitored, tutored, coached and honed to an unprecedented degree.

Yet upon graduation they will enter a world that is unprecedentedly wide open and unstructured. Most of them will not quickly get married, buy a home and have kids, as previous generations did. Instead, they will confront amazingly diverse job markets, social landscapes and lifestyle niches. Most will spend a decade wandering from job to job and clique to clique, searching for a role.

No one would design a system of extreme supervision to prepare people for a decade of extreme openness. But this is exactly what has emerged in modern America. College students are raised in an environment that demands one set of navigational skills, and they are then cast out into a different environment requiring a different set of skills, which they have to figure out on their own.

Worst of all, they are sent off into this world with the whole baby-boomer theology ringing in their ears. If you sample some of the commencement addresses being broadcast on C-Span these days, you see that many graduates are told to: Follow your passion, chart your own course, march to the beat of your own drummer, follow your dreams and find yourself. This is the litany of expressive individualism, which is still the dominant note in American culture.

But, of course, this mantra misleads on nearly every front.

College grads are often sent out into the world amid rapturous talk of limitless possibilities. But this talk is of no help to the central business of adulthood, finding serious things to tie yourself down to. The successful young adult is beginning to make sacred commitments — to a spouse, a community and calling — yet mostly hears about freedom and autonomy.

Today’s graduates are also told to find their passion and then pursue their dreams. The implication is that they should find themselves first and then go off and live their quest. But, of course, very few people at age 22 or 24 can take an inward journey and come out having discovered a developed self.

Most successful young people don’t look inside and then plan a life. They look outside and find a problem, which summons their life. A relative suffers from Alzheimer’s and a young woman feels called to help cure that disease. A young man works under a miserable boss and must develop management skills so his department can function. Another young woman finds herself confronted by an opportunity she never thought of in a job category she never imagined. This wasn’t in her plans, but this is where she can make her contribution.

Most people don’t form a self and then lead a life. They are called by a problem, and the self is constructed gradually by their calling.

The graduates are also told to pursue happiness and joy. But, of course, when you read a biography of someone you admire, it’s rarely the things that made them happy that compel your admiration. It’s the things they did to court unhappiness — the things they did that were arduous and miserable, which sometimes cost them friends and aroused hatred. It’s excellence, not happiness, that we admire most.

Finally, graduates are told to be independent-minded and to express their inner spirit. But, of course, doing your job well often means suppressing yourself. As Atul Gawande mentioned during his countercultural address last week at Harvard Medical School, being a good doctor often means being part of a team, following the rules of an institution, going down a regimented checklist.

Today’s grads enter a cultural climate that preaches the self as the center of a life. But, of course, as they age, they’ll discover that the tasks of a life are at the center. Fulfillment is a byproduct of how people engage their tasks, and can’t be pursued directly. Most of us are egotistical and most are self-concerned most of the time, but it’s nonetheless true that life comes to a point only in those moments when the self dissolves into some task. The purpose in life is not to find yourself. It’s to lose yourself.

source: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/31/opinion/31brooks.html?_r=1&hp

Leaders: Born or Made?

image from http://gunningforthetruth.wordpress.com

Recently, founding father of Singapore, Lee Kuan Yew, was asked by a group of Japanese officials and businessmen about his views on leadership. He relates his experience with sheepdogs in Australia and how they are chosen based on certain traits that they are born with. To get a good sheepdog, one needs to find the 'right dog'.

This view is not uncommon. In the 1940s to the 1950s, management gurus proposed the idea that leaders were born and not made. This view is known as the Trait Theory of Leadership. Most of us in this day and age have probably heard others mention that leaders can be 'made'. This might fall under the Behavioural Theory of Leadership. What this means is that researchers study the successful habits of leaders, past and present, compile them into bite sizes and then pass on the knowledge to those keen on being a good leader. This theory proposes that with observation and practice, anyone can become a good leader.

If one believes in Trait Theory, then there will be no need for trainers and academics helping people to be better leaders. Instead, psychologists and behavioural scientists would create a host of tests to help affirm that you have good leadership genes. This does not bode well for business schools and leadership consultants, does it?

If one believes in the Behavioural Theory, then the reverse is true. Business schools and leadership consultants will do very well, not psychologists and behavioural scientists.

I do believe that despite motivation and proper training, some catch on rather quickly, while others find it hard to put into practice. The question is this --- why then do some find it easier to learn while others struggle at the application stage? Why are some better leaders than others? Why are some better employees than others?

In the latest HRM magazine (Issue 116), page 10 attracted my attention. The title was 'Grooming average Joes'. The magazine interviewed 3 senior managers on how a leader should bring out the potential in an employee displaying average performance. 2 out of the 3 believed that 'no employee is average'.

Let me weigh in on this.

If 'no employee is average', then why do we have some staff who are more efficient and others who are 'simply useless'? The general argument is that the 'useless employees' are not fulfilling their potential, thus the dip in their performance. The solution? Leaders should, in the words of one of the senior managers, 'Marshall and Motivate'.

But my question is this --- assuming all things being equal, what if a person's maximum potential is a 5/10, and his colleague's is 8/10? I propose that this is not far fetched. Instead, unpopular as it may be, this is reality. Very simply, I believe that some people make better leaders and better employees than others. One might think that I am stating the obvious, but if you believe that there are 'no average employees', what you are saying is that with enough motivation, everyone has an equal chance of being promoted and becoming a good leader.

Believing that there are 'no employees are average' may also lead to unrealistic expectations. If you do not recognise that different employees have different levels of potential, you are likely to unfairly blame an employee should he or she not meet your expectations. On the flip side, the employee might unfairly blame the leader for not doing enough to unveil his or her potential.

When a colleague is observed to be consistently delivering sub-par work, one should ask whether the colleague has already achieved his or her potential in the presence of motivation and support. If the answer is a firm 'Yes', then you will have to decide whether your organization should continue keeping this person. However, if the colleague has shown sparks of good work and added value occasionally, but is inconsistent, then we can probably say that his or her potential has not been achieved.

We are all born different, talented in a variety of ways. Politically correct as it may be, it would be a terrible thing to assume that we are all mold-able to a desired end.

Paul Lim is an adjunct faculty member with the Organisational Behaviour & Human Resources (OBHR) discipline at the Lee Kong Chian School of Business, Singapore Management University; an Academic Associate and an Adjunct Associate with the Centre of Innovation & Enterprise, Republic Polytechnic, Singapore. He teaches courses in Leadership, Organisational Behaviour and Cross Generational Management. A doctoral student with French business school - Grenoble Ecole de Management, he is currently writing his dissertation on the impact of mentoring on employee retention in millennials (Generation Y).

Maid's body found in HDB water tank --- looking beyond the tragedy

SINGAPORE - Housing Board flat dwellers of Black 686B Woodlands Drive woke up to some rather unique water quality on the morning of 16 May 2011. Residents claimed that the water coming out of their taps looked 'slightly yellowish and appeared unnaturally foamy'. At least four complaints were made to the respective town council about the issue. Efficiently, the water supply was subsequently turned off at 11am and 'maintenance work' was done to rectify the problem.

However, for the residents of Block 686B, their day would soon turn their stomachs upside down.

Police received a call at about 10am from a maintenance crew, informing them about a dead body floating in the 2m deep water tank. The woman, identified as a domestic worker who worked for the family on the sixth floor of the same block, was clad in bermudas and a T-shirt. Some cuts were suggested to have been observed on her back.

A resident, when interviewed in the wake of the grisly discovery, commented this way,"This so disgusting. My whole family finished a big pot of green bean soup I cooked this morning."

This incident is certain to be the talk of the town in the coming days as more information about this case is revealed. However, two issues have to be addressed as a result of this tragic episode.


Terrorism: Poisoning the water supply
This incident certainly raises questions about the safety of water supply to the more than 85% of Singaporeans who live in HDB flats. Maintenance workers who maintain the cleanliness and serviceability of HDB facilities belong to private contractors hired by the respective town councils. A substantial number of these workers hail from South Asian countries and have been observed to be industrious in their work. However, geopolitical considerations need to be taken into account as South Asia is not unknown to be sympathetic to radical elements. A scenario whereby a maintenance crew member deliberately adds poison to the water tanks of a cluster of flats under his care is something not unimaginable. I am glad that certain security agencies in our country proactively embed individuals into certain sites to test the potential damage that could be carried out by radicals. It is in recent memory that Singaporeans recall the breach of a MRT train depot by a couple of graffiti artists. This breach raised pertinent questions about the security infrastructure and systems at MRT depots and improvements have been made since. In light of this recent abuse of a public facility, it is important for the HDB and the Ministry of Home Affairs to review current security clearance measures when hiring these workers.


Crisis Communication
At 12.30pm, residents received town council notices informing them about the 'maintenance works' that was in progress. Such notices are typically pasted at lift landings on the ground floor.

When interviewed by the local media about the lack of information and communication efforts made to affected residents, general manager of the affected town council, Mr Soon Min Sin, responded,"Our priority was to protect the residents and cut off the water supply for their safety...once the investigation is concluded, we will let the residents know."


Crisis communication is vital for many reasons:

1. To minimize the spread of inaccurate information and speculation

2. To avoid a situation of panic that may result in irrational decisions made by members of the public eg. When the Japanese radiation leak from Fukushima was said to be heading towards China, members of the public started hording salt in the hope of countering radiation sickness and to hedge against the rise of future salt prices.

3. To instil confidence in the public that the situation is under control


There are areas in Mr Soon's statement that could be further clarified.

1. If cutting off the water supply is for 'their (the residents') safety', are we to imply that residents whom might have earlier consumed the tainted water are in an 'unsafe' position? If so, what can be done to make your position 'safe'?

2. It is prudent to omit certain details (for the moment) that are deemed as 'too sensitive'. However, a dearth of information gives members of the public a perception that authorities in charge of the situation are hiding something, or worse, clueless as to how to approach the situation

3. Timeliness of releasing information is an important point to note. If residents are to only be given access to information 'once the investigation is concluded' --- which might mean a few months, it is not unexpected that uncertainty will sweep over residents. Affected residents might trawl the internet to fill the information void. This could lead to the spreading of misinformation about the case, the town council managers or in a worse case scenario --- the involved government agencies.

Yesterday's story was a tragic case of a person losing her life in a foreign country. From this tragedy, the various reactions of the affected residents are highly valid. At times though, it could be bizarrely seen as comical, especially in the absence of information communicated to them by the relevant authorities.

Of greater importance is the future safety of the water supply at HDB flats. The irony of this case might end up as such: the untimely death of a domestic helper will help rectify security lapses, resulting in the saving of more than 4 million Singapore residents' lives.

Sources: Straits Times, US State Department

Paul Lim is an adjunct faculty member with the Organisational Behaviour & Human Resources (OBHR) discipline at the Lee Kong Chian School of Business, Singapore Management University; an Academic Associate and an Adjunct Associate with the Centre of Innovation & Enterprise, Republic Polytechnic, Singapore. He teaches courses in Leadership, Organisational Behaviour and Cross Generational Management. A doctoral student with French business school - Grenoble Ecole de Management, he is currently writing his dissertation on the effects of peer mentoring on employee retention in the millennial generation (Gen Y). This article is based on the writer's personal opinion and is not representative of any organisation or persons he may be associated with.

Why the 'Cooling-off Day' might backfire on the PAP

image from http://sgsharemarket.com/home/2011/04/nomination-day-is-on-april-27/

SINGAPORE - This year's Singapore General Elections will see a new campaigning rule being put in place. A 'Cooling-off Day' will come into effect 24 hours before polling day, creating a 'campaign silence period' where no campaigning activities will be allowed for all parties.

The rules are further detailed on the Singapore Elections Department website:

Cooling-off Day The eve of Polling Day is designated as Cooling-off Day, a day when election campaigning is prohibited. This 24-hour campaign silence period is to give voters some time to reflect rationally on issues raised during the election before going to the polls. There are some exceptions to the prohibition of campaign activities on Cooling-off Day:

• Party political broadcasts on television;
• Reports in the newspapers, on radio and television relating to election matters;
• Approved posters and banners that were already up, and lawful Internet advertising that was already published before the eve of Polling Day;
• Books previously scheduled for publication;
• The transmission of personal political views by individuals to other individuals, on a non-commercial basis, using the Internet, telephone or electronic means; and
• Such activities or circumstances as may be prescribed by the Minister.

The above exception list, other than party political broadcast, also applies to Polling Day.
(http://www.elections.gov.sg/elections_parliamentary.html)

Prime Minster Lee Hsien Loong gave the reasons for this new ruling:

Mr Lee said: “I think 24 hours after the last excitement of the election campaign period, the rallies, the door-to-door campaigning, the adrenaline flowing, the clash in the mass media as well as in person, perambulating vans blaring away loud speakers, it’s good to have 24 hours to just calm down, think about it – tomorrow we vote.”

He added that having a cooling-off period will also lessen the risk of public disorder.

“Previously, once in a while, we have had pushing and shoving at election rallies as the crowd gets worked up and doesn’t disperse, but the main thing is to have time for people to think over the issues and to vote in a calm state of mind,” he said.

Mr Lee was asked how this additional 24-hour cooling-off period would apply to the online world of networking and video-sharing sites.

“On the Internet, it’s grey and also the policing is not so straight-forward but even then, in principle we should say today is a quiet day. I cannot control several million videos on youtube but your website, what you’re putting up in your own name, I think that should end the day before the cooling-off day,” he said.

Countries that have imposed a similar period of campaign silence include Australia and Indonesia.

Australia has a three-day black-out of election advertising and Indonesia has a three-day cooling-off before Legislative Elections and a two-day cooling-off before the Presidential election.

(http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/1021648/1/.html)


In my previous post, I remarked that such an act would be akin to clutching at straws, a last ditch effort to help the ruling party 'win back' some voters who might have been perceived as emotionally swayed at the highly charged rallies organised by the PAP's counterparts in the opposition.

The theory goes something like this --- on the eve of polling day, you attend a highly charged rally organised by an opposition party. It is the day before the General Elections. The candidates are fired up and they want to set you alive with the their closing statements. You return home all pumped up, go to bed and awake the next morning (probably still pumped up) to vote in favour of the opposition.

At the first rally held by the WP in 2011, it was estimated that up to 20,000 people attended the event held at Hougang. My take is that the open fields have already reached its maximum capacity, and any change in attendees would be negligible.

Assuming that 5 separate rallies held by the different opposition parties were to take place on the final day of campaigning, it is estimated that a maximum of 100,000 people will be reached with speeches that are non-aligned with that of the ruling party's.

These rallies are taped by the respective parties and then uploaded onto their organisation websites or youtube, usually on the following day for public viewing.

However, by imposing a Cooling-off Day in order potentially win back these 100,000 rally participants, the PAP might inadvertently be giving the opposition the upper hand.

Rallies are only allowed to be be held up to 2200hrs (10pm). Subsequently, the parties might take some time to edit what was taped and then upload the footage either later that night or on the following day. Final day rallies are vital as candidates deliver their most crucial arguments and seek to end on a high note.

Given the new Cooling-off Day ruling, it is certain that all parties will scramble to upload their latest video footage as soon as possible in order to meet the deadline (this does not apply to personal blogs, personal facebook or twitter accounts). Doing so would give the public one full day to view what took place at the previous night's rally.

Now, if the Cooling-off Day ruling was not imposed, rallies and campaigning would have gone right up to the wire --- 10pm on a Friday. Parties would also rush to put their rally footage on the internet. The public would then only be able to view the recorded footage, but only on polling day itself. However, given that voters are eager to cast their vote and that many would like to beat the queue on polling day, many would want to cast their votes early, resulting in many not being able to review all of the previous night's events and speeches. Thus, the reach and the potential impact of the most recently uploaded rally videos would be relatively limited. Such a situation would favour parties who are able to organise highly charged rallies and send their 100,000 rally attendants to vote on a 'high' in just less than 24hrs post rally.

Perhaps, this was what the ruling party saw coming, leading them to impose a Cooling-off Day.

However, by imposing a Cooling-off Day, the public would be able to get a full day to view all of the previous evening's footage by all the different parties. Popular and relevant speeches (identified by passionate supporters of the opposition parties) would be 'pushed' or forwarded to friends via facebook, twitter and email. Voters will be hungry for last minute bits of information, trawling the internet and keeping their Facebook news feeds current. It would thus be very likely that exponentially more than the 100,000 rally participants would be eyeballing the videos --- videos that are likely to be 'pushed' by passionate supporters of the opposition parties. Instead of 'stabilising' the minds of the 100,000 rally participants, the Cooling-off Day may just do the opposite and expand the videos' reach to more people, convincing them to align with the opposition parties instead.

The Cooling-off Day might have worked in the absence of social media. PM Lee was also asked to comment on the impact of the internet on the Cooling-off Day (see above) and he acknowledged that it is something hard to police.

It is unknown if such a proposed angle was considered before the rule was imposed. That said, only time will tell if a strategically crafted move would turn out to be critically successful or a tactical failure.


Paul Lim is an adjunct faculty member with the Organisational Behaviour & Human Resources (OBHR) discipline at the Lee Kong Chian School of Business, Singapore Management University; an Academic Associate and an Adjunct Associate with the Centre of Innovation & Enterprise, Republic Polytechnic, Singapore. He teaches courses in Leadership, Organisational Behaviour and Cross Generational Management at the above institutions. A doctoral student with French business school - Grenoble Ecole de Management, he is currently writing his dissertation on the effects of peer mentoring on employee retention in the millennial generation (Gen Y). This article is based on the writer's personal opinion and is not representative of any organisation or persons he may be associated with.

Singapore goes to the polls...and my view?

picture from facebook Singapore General Election 2011's Notes

Ah, I guess this post had to come sooner or later, and some of you might also like to know where I stand on things.

Many of you probably have an idea of who you are going to vote for or if I could phrase it in another way --- vote against.

The ruling party, People's Action Party (PAP), has been in power since 1959 (the PAP I am referring to is the one in Singapore, not the ones in Ghana, PNG, Romania or Vietnam). That, I must say, is a very long time.

So, am I pro-PAP or pro-opposition?

Not so fast, people. You see, this is a very difficult question to answer.

I am grateful to the PAP for how they have brought Singapore to where we are currently in the areas of religious harmony, physical infrastructure, safety and defence. In education, despite all the discontentment with the system, we have a largely literate and educated population. In the area of public housing, it is not a perfect system, but when you compare with global cities of similar standing, we are probably one of the best in the world. Trust me, I have seen first hand, public housing projects the world over.

Personal taxes are low and are going to be even lower come 2012. We have no natural water source and so we drink recycled water --- but it is safe and we can drink in confidence knowing that we have a constant supply of drinkable water (can't say so much of the smell of late...smelled of fish the last time I bathed).

We often take our public transport system for granted. Highly efficient and clean, getting connected to all parts of the island is rather seamless, although things can get rather crowded during the rush hours. But really, have you been to Guangzhou, Shanghai or Tokyo? You will know the horrors one faces when attempting to take the trains --- read as 'be prepared to get squashed, molested, etc'.

We have access to all kinds of foods in the world at our doorstep at relatively affordable prices. Some of you do not know this --- but the government stockpiles 3 to 4 times the rice that every supplier sells to the retailers in secret warehouses all over the island. This keeps the price of certain staples low and also acts as a buffer in times of crisis.

Being paranoid at every kind of crisis that might hit Singapore, the government has pretty much done scenario planning for all kinds of eventualities, save a nation wide alien abduction...where, I might just stand corrected.

But like every government the world over, the ruling party is not perfect.

A United Nations Development Programme report of developed countries ranked Singapore second, just behind Hong Kong in income inequality (http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/1110326/1/.html). This presents an extremely challenging picture to those who are at the very bottom of the income spectrum, which in turn affects those who are the most innocent of the lot --- the children of low income families.

Political freedom is controlled in this country. The media is censored in the interest of national security. Political rivals deemed a 'threat to harmony' in the past have been dealt with effectively such that you would either be poor or have to be self-exiled. If you study Hofstede's research into Individualism vs Collectivism, Singaporeans have always been preached to about the greater good for the rest of society --- thus, we are collectivist as a result of the government. Fear of Singapore running into anarchy is a sufficient enough reason for baby boomers who have vivid recollections of Singapore during the times of racial riots.

Cars are a luxury item in Singapore. The price of a Toyota Altis in Singapore will get you the equivalent of a couple of brand new beemers on a 27 month lease in the US. Which reminds me, that we have to pay multiple types of tolls for use of roads in order to alleviate congestion. We pay tolls not to recoup the cost of building the roads. We pay tolls so that we can attain the right to use the roads. The amounts are relatively small in themselves, but when accumulated over time, it can get rather costly (think US$10 for a daily trip to and from the office during the rush hour period).

The price of housing has risen rather ridiculously in tandem with inflation, buyer demand and worsening land scarcity. While this phenomenon is not new to other cities in the world, the price of public housing in Singapore is pegged to land prices as determined by market forces --- not a good thing for couples who want to start a life together. As such, marriages are delayed in lieu of sufficient funds to put for a down payment for their first home. Systemic problems are created as a result of this trend --- relationships between couples are strained as a result of the pressure to speed up the putting of the down payment and might lead to a called off wedding; couples would get married later and lead to couples having difficulty in conceiving, which leads to an overall expected Total Fertility Rate (TFR) of 1.11 in 2011 (CIA world fact book). This puts us at 3rd from the bottom of 223 countries with Hong Kong and Macau being worse off than us.

Which leads me to the next issue: foreign immigrants.

As a result of such a low TFR, foreign immigrants are needed to replace the shortfall in babies. However, rumblings from the ground show that citizens are highly dissatisfied with the influx of foreigners who allegedly 'raise the price of our flats, threaten our jobs, stress out our children with their fantastic grades and steal our husbands'. Of course, it is not all that bleak and I have good friends of all nationalities. Heck --- I have even helped them settle into Singapore! But these feelings of resentment are not trivial and it will be a major issue during these elections.

Hmm...

To make things more dicey for the ruling party, thousands of Gen Y voters will be voting for the first time. They do not care for proven track record and your experience (that's actually part of my doctoral research). They want good answers to their questions and have no qualms about voting for the opposition in the spirit of 'trying something new'. They are definitely not politically apathetic and do care a lot for what happens to themselves and the society at large.

Another weak area of the ruling party --- clear, transparent communication. In the past, the mainstream media could be censored. Not the internet though...ok, so with the exception of a few token 'banned sites' such as Playboy. With the internet, it is terribly difficult to censor blogs, tweets and your facebook status. I appreciate the many good policies that the PAP has implemented, but by having a history of clamming up or limiting the debate on tough issues, it has done itself a disfavour by not providing people with clear, transparent communication --- leading to suspicion and misunderstood perceptions.

And so, where do I stand?

The PAP has done a great job in the past. Will it be relevant in the future? A balanced government also needs the presence of good quality opposing voices in order to keep the ruling powers in check. This is good for the people, but it can also be a hindrance to the decision making turnaround time --- something the PAP has been used to as it is a very powerful competitive advantage for Singapore in such a fast moving world.

I am certain that the PAP's top brass know that these elections will be a humbling one for them. In what I see as a desperate attempt to clutch at straws, a cooling off day has been imposed on the day before the elections, where no political party is allowed to campaign. This is to give people time to think things over carefully before making their vote on polling day --- to be read as 'please don't be swayed by the good quality of candidates in the opposition, look at our track record and continue to vote for us'.

Will I vote in favour of a certain party? I am afraid that is not my main concern. Parties have both good and bad candidates. I will vote for the candidates whom I think will best serve my area's needs. It may be the PAP or it may be the opposition. But I will have to make a concerted effort to find out, process and decide.

For you out there, the Singaporean, you need to vote. Get out there and make a decision. You could choose the PAP, the opposition or spoil your vote. But that is your choice and you need to contribute to the future of our nation, so please vote wisely.

And yeah, these opinions are purely my own and do not reflect that of any organization or persons that I am associated with *wink*

Entering the new year 2011

What a year it has been.

Despite the ups and downs, I am glad that we are here, now.

As for me, insights into the land of China greeted me even before the advent of 2011. And unlike many of my friends, I actually have come to embrace China in a rather unexpected way. I am well aware of the presence of China's hardware and its software that is going through a 'Work-in-Progress'. But instead of rejecting them, why not do the opposite?

You see, as economies develop, so does the software in the people. It will take some time before the Chinese are exposed to the ways of western civilization. But in the meantime, perhaps it would do us well not to think of ourselves as superior folks. That said, certain anecdotes are rather amusing. For instance, watching this documentary on how an American entrepreneur started a gym in Beijing, he related that some ladies did not know what to do with the treadmill and started to walk on it --- in their heels.

A funny thing happened while I was walking with a good friend of mine, down a busy street in Shanghai. Unlike Tokyo's Kabuki-Cho area which is first, a red-light district, attracting tourists to its sights, this was not a sleazy place but a street where tourists frequent for shopping.

I quipped that he needed a woman in his life. As if on cue, a lady pimp approached my friend and touted the services of 'pretty maidens who would be at his beck and call'.

The timing was so uncanny, I threw back my head and laughed!

We met 2 more male pimps on the way before my friend decided to put away the temptations of the world and be tempted by another kind --- food!

We sat down in a cafe (try not to think of Starbucks...try wooden stools and marbled top tables that well aged in a musty shop) and on that cold winter's night in Shanghai, we had a piping hot bowl of Soy bean milk coupled with Fried dough fritters (豆浆油条). A separate bamboo basket of meat dumplings topped it off.

China - love it or loathe it, you will be impacted by it in some way or another.