I wrote this for TODAY upon their suggestion. I suppose it was logical for me to do this, since I had written about Melvyn Tan a while back.
It seems to me that NS as an institution is being increasingly questioned by Singaporeans. I see that as a positive thing, in that it demonstrates a more questioning and thinking citizenry, that is not prepared to simply take the Government's statements at face value.
As I write below, I firmly believe in the need for NS -- but I also believe it can be tweaked, and more importantly, it needs to be refined and updated to maintain its relevance and legitiacy in the minds of Singaporeans. Otherwise, resentment against NS will simply grow, and that will ultimately undermine its legitimacy as an institution. And there can be no sacred cows in this process.
I had originally included an additional point, that it is actually more disruptive to an enlistee's NS experience, to allow him to disrupt NS to go for university studies (as many Government scholars do), than to have the enlistee enter NS later. If the Government is prepared to allow that, then it seems inequitable to me to prevent young men who have already started their undergraduate studies from completing those studies before starting NS, and especially so if they are overseas. They should still be young enough when they get their degree. Unfortunately, this point was cut by the editor for space reasons.
Need to refine deferment policy?
Increasing number of young Singaporean males are growing up and studying overseas
Tuesday • August 12, 2008
SIEW KUM HONG
THREE years after pianist Melvyn Tan was fined $3,000 for not fulfilling his National Service (NS) obligations, the issue of National Service defaulters is in the spotlight again.
This time, two young men were convicted for staying outside Singapore without an exit permit.
Mr Shantakumar Bannirchelvam, 19, was initially placed on six months’ probation and ordered to do 40 hours of community service. Upon appeal by the prosecution, he was fined $1,500. Judge of AppealV K Rajah noted the need for a fine “as a matter of policy and precedent”.
On the other hand, Mr Amit Rahul Shah, 23, was jailed for three months. It is not clear why he received such a severe sentence, considering the benchmark of a $3,000 fine. Perhaps it was because he had not applied for a deferment, unlike Mr Shantakumar.
What is clear is that both men had voluntarily returned to Singapore to serve NS, with full knowledge of the charges they would face. In other words, they were essentially punished for not doing NS at the appointed time, and not for evading NS completely.
In response to a recent question in Parliament, Defence Minister Teo Chee Hean reiterated the policy of calling up NS-liable males when they turn 18, and the key principles of maintaining universality and equity in granting deferment from full-time NS to pre-enlistees still pursuing their studies.
In the Ministry of Defence’s view, all should be given the opportunity to attain their ‘A’ Levels, International Baccalaureate, polytechnic diploma or equivalent qualifications before enlistment, but not higher educational qualifications such as university degrees.
But is this policy outdated, in a globalised world with a growing Singaporean diaspora?
As more Singaporeans and their families settle down in other countries, whether due to overseas postings or otherwise, an increasing number of young Singaporean males will be growing up and studying overseas. It would be unrealistic to expect the educational systems in those countries, or their educational paths, to accommodate our enlistment policy.
Let me be clear: I am a strong advocate of the central role of NS in the Singapore psyche.
In 2006, I wrote a piece in Today criticising the portrayal in some quarters of Mr Tan as a “lost son of Singapore”. I firmly believe in the desirability of having all fit Singaporean men perform NS, and punishing those who do not.
NS is a compulsory obligation, and we must ensure its continued legitimacy amongst Singaporeans. Even as I agree with Mindef on the principles of universality and equity, I wonder whether its deferment policy can be refined such that it remains relevant in a globalised world, without undermining those key principles.
Failure to do so may result in Singaporean males resenting the institution of NS, which could then undermine its legitimacy.
Of Scholars and NS timing
If we were to ask Singaporean men what the true sacrifice of NS is, how would they answer? I dare say it would be the two years of full-time NS and the subsequent reservist obligations.
I also dare say the timing of those two years — whether they are served before or after one’s undergraduate studies — would be far less important.
As it is, the Government itself allows some scholars to disrupt full-time NS to go for undergraduate studies. It seems arbitrary to say that scholars should be allowed to disrupt their NS, but non-scholars already in undergraduate studies should not be allowed to defer their enlistment.
Yesterday, for example, it was reported that Mindef rejected a Singapore Institute of Management student’s appeal to defer his enlistment for three months to sit for his first-year exams first.
I believe we should distinguish between those who are unable to return at 18 years because of certain commitments or opportunities but do so upon the conclusion of those commitments or opportunities — such as Mr Shantakumar — and those who never return and do not evince any desire to complete their NS obligations, such as Mr Tan.
If a Singaporean male had gone overseas as a child — for instance, before he turned 15 — and upon turning 18 is undertaking or about to commence undergraduate studies, perhaps we should allow him to defer enlistment until he completes those undergraduate (but not postgraduate) studies, so long as he undertakes to return to Singapore and enlist at that time. We can also require a guarantor if needed.
This would strike an appropriate balance between maintaining the universality and equity of NS, by having all Singaporean males complete full-time NS by their early 20s, and allowing Singaporeans who grow up overseas to pursue their goals without undue disruption.
And I think most, if not all, Singaporeans would be perfectly fine with this.
The writer is a Nominated Member of Parliament and corporate counsel, commenting in his personal capacity.
Showing posts with label TODAY. Show all posts
Showing posts with label TODAY. Show all posts
Friday, 15 August 2008
Tuesday, 12 August 2008
Where do we go from here?
This article, as well as the reply from MHA, appeared in TODAY quite some time back. Sze Yong had helped prepare it for posting here, but I've only just gotten around to publishing it. It should be read in light of my speech on security lapses and my OPQ on the sudden deaths of NSmen.
Where do we go from here?
Weekend • June 21, 2008
news@newstoday.com.sg
LAST Sunday night, Channel NewsAsia launched a fortnightly news show called Talking Point. The producers were kind enough to invite me to be a guest.
The show discussed last week’s incidents at two key Government ministries: The tragic deaths of two Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) servicemen during training and the escape of two men from the Subordinate Courts lock-up for a short while before being caught. We focused on three aspects: the flow of information, reactions of Singaporeans and complacency.
The police released the news of the escape nearly 12 hours after the incident. But the information in a press statement, released just past midnight, was very detailed. It went into some length about what really happened in the holding cell on June 11.
As for the reactions of the public, there was general agreement that there was great concern, mainly because the escape had happened barely four months after Mas Selamat’s break-out from the Internal Security Department detention centre at Whitley Road.
On the part of the Ministry of Defence (MINDEF), it had reacted quickly by not just telling Singaporeans about the deaths, but also acting swiftly in calling for an unprecedented three-day suspension of all training activities.
Still, it was the issue of complacency that occupied much attention during the show. Simply put, the question was: Had the Mas Selamat lesson been absorbed across the Home Team? In particular, has the rank-and-file on the ground sufficiently internalised the importance of their work?
A series of human errors was blamed for Mas Selamat’s escape. The latest case has also been blamed on human error, and Minister for Law and Second Minister for Home Affairs K Shanmugam told Singaporeans last Saturday that the risk of human risk cannot be completely eliminated.
But that is precisely why well-designed systems are so crucial: they should mitigate, or even prevent, human risk, if possible. The Subordinate Courts’ security system was audited in March and April. There will be another review to minimise the level of human error, and to strategically reconsider the flow of accused persons through the building.
This, then, raises the question of whether the earlier review had covered those aspects.
Ever since 911, Singaporeans have been reminded to be ever-vigilant; that we need to win every battle but the terrorists only need to win once. I believe that, if (touch wood) there is ever a successful terror attack due to human error, Singaporeans will wonder what is happening to our systems and our guardians of security.
When Parliament debated the findings of the Committee of Inquiry on Mas Selamat’s escape, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs Wong Kan Seng rightly pointed out that “it would be stretching the argument too far” to say that “the whole Ministry and all the Home Team departments are complacent”.
But clearly, complacency existed at Whitley Road, as well as in the Subordinate Courts, at least up until last Wednesday.
In Mas Selamat’s case, the Government’s approach to accountability for errors was to discipline those who were personally responsible, as well as those with direct management over, or statutory responsibility for, the area in question. What the Ministry of Home Affairs needs to ask itself is, moving forward, whether this approach is sufficient to prevent another disaster.
In the same week, two SAF Servicemen died in as many days, while undergoing training. The SAF then suspended physical and endurance training across the military for three days. This suspension ended on Saturday, with the SAF determining that proper procedures are in place and being followed.
Some would wonder about the need for the unprecedented suspension. Was it an attempt to reassure Singaporeans that MINDEF takes these deaths very seriously? Was it to avoid the unthinkable tragedy of yet another training death?
Since the incident, some doctors in private practice have proposed more comprehensive screening of enlistees for heart conditions. A cardiologist has estimated that it would cost about $3 million to screen 10,000 recruits using treadmill tests and echocardiograms, or $5.7 million a year assuming an annual cohort of 19,000 recruits.
Other doctors have rejected such a step as unnecessary, citing high cost and the impossibility of completely eliminating such deaths. In other words, it is not cost-effective. Implicit in such a view is the belief that human life can be adequately quantified in monetary terms.
Sudden cardiac deaths are not new to the SAF, and yet no additional tests were introduced besides resting ECGs for all pre-enlistees in 2000. At the very minimum, MINDEF should conduct a trial project to ascertain whether the additional tests are indeed effective in detecting conditions that existing tests do not. If so, then there is a very valid question as to whether we should introduce the additional testing.
National Service is compulsory. It seems to me that if we as a society demand that all male Singaporeans perform NS, then the least we can do is to ensure that they are thoroughly screened for such potential heart conditions that are known to result in death, regardless of cost.
The writer is a Nominated Member of Parliament and corporate counsel,commenting in his personal capacity. He expresses his condolences to the families of the late 2LT Clifton Lam Jia Hao and REC Andrew Cheah Wei Siong.
The best of systems are not immune to human failures
Friday • June 27, 2008
Letter from TOH YONG CHUAN
Director (Corporate Relations)
Ministry of Home Affairs
I REFER to the commentary “Where do we go from here?” (June 21) by Mr Siew Kum Hong.
The incident at the Subordinate Court happened, as Mr Siew rightly pointed out, due to “human error”. Investigation of the incident indicated that the systems and established procedures were sound. But a few of the frontline officers concerned did not observe the procedures.
The security systems and procedures at the Subordinate Court were reviewed, tested and where applicable, upgraded. However, ultimately there is no human operator system that is not susceptible to human failure. This and the fact that the failures were individual human lapses do not diminish the seriousness of its occurrence and its consequences. However, it is misconceived to generalise that these human failures are reflective of systemic failure when the findings of the investigation, which explored this direction as well, do not support such a conclusion.
Mr Siew asserts that well-designed systems should mitigate, or even prevent, human risk, if possible. Indeed, sound systems lower the risk of failure and all security planners should pursue this end as far as is practicable.
However, all systems are inherently dated insofar as they are based on what its planner or designer knows at that point in time. And all systems have to be operated by individuals, who will have to be empowered to exercise judgment in some situations. Ironically, systems which minimise human judgment and discretion may appear hyper-efficient. But in fact, they face the serious risk of being blind-sided by a changing complex reality.
The ability of an operational system to adjust and overcome glitches and surprises beyond its designed parameters resides ultimately in the human operator. The key is to empower our officers and entrust them to do the right thing at the right time. This comes with some risk of occasional poor judgment. To mitigate this risk and the consequence of error, a key factor we seek to develop is the team’s ability to recover and respond when a lapse occurs.
In the incident at the Subordinate Court, the contingency response was swift and the recovery operations executed professionally. The two offenders were quickly detected and apprehended. The people and the recovery processes worked well.
It is noteworthy, that while SC/Cpl Donnie Lim should not have opened the cell door when giving water to the persons in custody, he also responded professionally and with personal courage. Notwithstanding the pain and injury of the assault he suffered, he picked himself up quickly, ran after the two escapees at the risk of further assault and raised the alert quickly.
The fact is that the human being remains both our weakest and strongest link in the frontline of any security system.
We must always guard against complacency even though we know there will never be zero failure on a permanent basis. To the best of our knowledge, no country or organisation has succeeded in achieving zero failure. Occasional individual lapses and failures will happen from time to time. The key is whether we will learn from such mistakes when they occur and evaluate if they are symptomatic of any deeper problem. We believe we will.
To generalise that the entire Home Team, which consists of many departments with different operational functions, is malfunctioning because of these incidents of specific individual failures does injustice to the commitment and effort of the thousands of regulars, NSmen and volunteers of the Home Team, in keeping Singapore safe and secure.
The low crime, drug abuse and recidivism rates that Singapore enjoy, are among the lowest in the world in comparison with similar foreign jurisdictions with their proportionately larger staffing ratios. This is not the product of work by thousands of men and women officers who are “switched off” or complacent.
Where do we go from here?
Weekend • June 21, 2008
news@newstoday.com.sg
LAST Sunday night, Channel NewsAsia launched a fortnightly news show called Talking Point. The producers were kind enough to invite me to be a guest.
The show discussed last week’s incidents at two key Government ministries: The tragic deaths of two Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) servicemen during training and the escape of two men from the Subordinate Courts lock-up for a short while before being caught. We focused on three aspects: the flow of information, reactions of Singaporeans and complacency.
The police released the news of the escape nearly 12 hours after the incident. But the information in a press statement, released just past midnight, was very detailed. It went into some length about what really happened in the holding cell on June 11.
As for the reactions of the public, there was general agreement that there was great concern, mainly because the escape had happened barely four months after Mas Selamat’s break-out from the Internal Security Department detention centre at Whitley Road.
On the part of the Ministry of Defence (MINDEF), it had reacted quickly by not just telling Singaporeans about the deaths, but also acting swiftly in calling for an unprecedented three-day suspension of all training activities.
Still, it was the issue of complacency that occupied much attention during the show. Simply put, the question was: Had the Mas Selamat lesson been absorbed across the Home Team? In particular, has the rank-and-file on the ground sufficiently internalised the importance of their work?
A series of human errors was blamed for Mas Selamat’s escape. The latest case has also been blamed on human error, and Minister for Law and Second Minister for Home Affairs K Shanmugam told Singaporeans last Saturday that the risk of human risk cannot be completely eliminated.
But that is precisely why well-designed systems are so crucial: they should mitigate, or even prevent, human risk, if possible. The Subordinate Courts’ security system was audited in March and April. There will be another review to minimise the level of human error, and to strategically reconsider the flow of accused persons through the building.
This, then, raises the question of whether the earlier review had covered those aspects.
Ever since 911, Singaporeans have been reminded to be ever-vigilant; that we need to win every battle but the terrorists only need to win once. I believe that, if (touch wood) there is ever a successful terror attack due to human error, Singaporeans will wonder what is happening to our systems and our guardians of security.
When Parliament debated the findings of the Committee of Inquiry on Mas Selamat’s escape, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs Wong Kan Seng rightly pointed out that “it would be stretching the argument too far” to say that “the whole Ministry and all the Home Team departments are complacent”.
But clearly, complacency existed at Whitley Road, as well as in the Subordinate Courts, at least up until last Wednesday.
In Mas Selamat’s case, the Government’s approach to accountability for errors was to discipline those who were personally responsible, as well as those with direct management over, or statutory responsibility for, the area in question. What the Ministry of Home Affairs needs to ask itself is, moving forward, whether this approach is sufficient to prevent another disaster.
In the same week, two SAF Servicemen died in as many days, while undergoing training. The SAF then suspended physical and endurance training across the military for three days. This suspension ended on Saturday, with the SAF determining that proper procedures are in place and being followed.
Some would wonder about the need for the unprecedented suspension. Was it an attempt to reassure Singaporeans that MINDEF takes these deaths very seriously? Was it to avoid the unthinkable tragedy of yet another training death?
Since the incident, some doctors in private practice have proposed more comprehensive screening of enlistees for heart conditions. A cardiologist has estimated that it would cost about $3 million to screen 10,000 recruits using treadmill tests and echocardiograms, or $5.7 million a year assuming an annual cohort of 19,000 recruits.
Other doctors have rejected such a step as unnecessary, citing high cost and the impossibility of completely eliminating such deaths. In other words, it is not cost-effective. Implicit in such a view is the belief that human life can be adequately quantified in monetary terms.
Sudden cardiac deaths are not new to the SAF, and yet no additional tests were introduced besides resting ECGs for all pre-enlistees in 2000. At the very minimum, MINDEF should conduct a trial project to ascertain whether the additional tests are indeed effective in detecting conditions that existing tests do not. If so, then there is a very valid question as to whether we should introduce the additional testing.
National Service is compulsory. It seems to me that if we as a society demand that all male Singaporeans perform NS, then the least we can do is to ensure that they are thoroughly screened for such potential heart conditions that are known to result in death, regardless of cost.
The writer is a Nominated Member of Parliament and corporate counsel,commenting in his personal capacity. He expresses his condolences to the families of the late 2LT Clifton Lam Jia Hao and REC Andrew Cheah Wei Siong.
The best of systems are not immune to human failures
Friday • June 27, 2008
Letter from TOH YONG CHUAN
Director (Corporate Relations)
Ministry of Home Affairs
I REFER to the commentary “Where do we go from here?” (June 21) by Mr Siew Kum Hong.
The incident at the Subordinate Court happened, as Mr Siew rightly pointed out, due to “human error”. Investigation of the incident indicated that the systems and established procedures were sound. But a few of the frontline officers concerned did not observe the procedures.
The security systems and procedures at the Subordinate Court were reviewed, tested and where applicable, upgraded. However, ultimately there is no human operator system that is not susceptible to human failure. This and the fact that the failures were individual human lapses do not diminish the seriousness of its occurrence and its consequences. However, it is misconceived to generalise that these human failures are reflective of systemic failure when the findings of the investigation, which explored this direction as well, do not support such a conclusion.
Mr Siew asserts that well-designed systems should mitigate, or even prevent, human risk, if possible. Indeed, sound systems lower the risk of failure and all security planners should pursue this end as far as is practicable.
However, all systems are inherently dated insofar as they are based on what its planner or designer knows at that point in time. And all systems have to be operated by individuals, who will have to be empowered to exercise judgment in some situations. Ironically, systems which minimise human judgment and discretion may appear hyper-efficient. But in fact, they face the serious risk of being blind-sided by a changing complex reality.
The ability of an operational system to adjust and overcome glitches and surprises beyond its designed parameters resides ultimately in the human operator. The key is to empower our officers and entrust them to do the right thing at the right time. This comes with some risk of occasional poor judgment. To mitigate this risk and the consequence of error, a key factor we seek to develop is the team’s ability to recover and respond when a lapse occurs.
In the incident at the Subordinate Court, the contingency response was swift and the recovery operations executed professionally. The two offenders were quickly detected and apprehended. The people and the recovery processes worked well.
It is noteworthy, that while SC/Cpl Donnie Lim should not have opened the cell door when giving water to the persons in custody, he also responded professionally and with personal courage. Notwithstanding the pain and injury of the assault he suffered, he picked himself up quickly, ran after the two escapees at the risk of further assault and raised the alert quickly.
The fact is that the human being remains both our weakest and strongest link in the frontline of any security system.
We must always guard against complacency even though we know there will never be zero failure on a permanent basis. To the best of our knowledge, no country or organisation has succeeded in achieving zero failure. Occasional individual lapses and failures will happen from time to time. The key is whether we will learn from such mistakes when they occur and evaluate if they are symptomatic of any deeper problem. We believe we will.
To generalise that the entire Home Team, which consists of many departments with different operational functions, is malfunctioning because of these incidents of specific individual failures does injustice to the commitment and effort of the thousands of regulars, NSmen and volunteers of the Home Team, in keeping Singapore safe and secure.
The low crime, drug abuse and recidivism rates that Singapore enjoy, are among the lowest in the world in comparison with similar foreign jurisdictions with their proportionately larger staffing ratios. This is not the product of work by thousands of men and women officers who are “switched off” or complacent.
Monday, 26 November 2007
After my dad died...
Those of you who read TODAY, might have noticed that Weekend TODAY has been trying to do things a little differently in the past few months, with stories that are not on the usual news radar. P.N. Balji has been running that operation, and he had asked that I contribute a piece, something that I normally wouldn't write on.
So I wrote this one. It's very personal to me. This is a piece that I've wanted to write for quite a while now, and the timing made sense.
After my dad died...
Weekend • November 24, 2007
Siew Kum Hong
I WAS five minutes away in a taxi when my father died.
I still remember that Friday night in November 2003. It was about 7pm when I got the call. It was short and stark.
"Come home quickly, your father fell and he can't make it," my mum sobbed. She hung up without waiting for my response.
I hopped into a cab immediately.
When I was five minutes away, my mum called again. "He's dead, he's dead." The line died.
I told the cabbie my dad had died. He was stunned and didn't say a word more. I felt a little apologetic, hoping that he wasn't superstitious.
When I got home, my mum was wailing beside my dad's lifeless body. He had fallen while walking up the steps to the house. The medics and policemen stood around uncomfortably. I broke down, inconsolable.
My dad was a traditional Chinese father — stern, unaffectionate and always working. I was angry at him over some things, which I never really forgave him for. But I learnt to put that aside and to love him despite that.
That moment came during my final examinations in year three of law school. He was hospitalised for treatment, but fell and was admitted to the ICU. I did not visit him then, but went after my penultimate paper.
When I finally stepped into the ward and saw him, I sobbed. It was just such a tremendous relief to see him.
In retrospect, I'm glad it happened. It was probably the first time he, and my mum, saw how much he meant to me. I also realised that at such times, what he had done before was irrelevant.
Perhaps my greatest regret in life to date was that I could not fulfil his last wish. One morning, as he drove me to the MRT station, he told me that his only unfulfilled wish in life was to see me get married.
He had seen everything else: his children graduating from university and getting good jobs, my brother and sister getting married, my brother giving him grandchildren.
I didn't know what to say. At the time, marriage looked improbable. So, I gave the only response that an uncomfortable child could — a non-committal grunt.
I'm still unmarried. But maybe if he had lived just a few more years, he would have been proud of me. I think he would have been immensely pleased by my appointment as a NMP.
Another major regret was not spending more time with him. In a way, that continues today, because I still don't spend enough time with my mum.
But I know I could certainly be a better son to her and from time to time I resolve to do better.
Some of that is attributable to the demands of today's working world. I was in private practice back then and I frequently treated home like a hotel, leaving for work in the morning and returning late at night. I could go days without seeing another family member.
I don't think that's uncommon for young people. But I wonder about my peers, who are getting to the age when parents are beginning to fall sick and die.
Are they aware that they have only so much time with their parents? Do they understand the compromises represented by long hours in the office?
And do they understand that by the time they do, it might be too late — as it was with me?
Too often, people are so caught up with their careers that they miss out on other things in life, such as family.
Many complain about long working hours — especially in recent times with the booming economy — but they seem to forget that they have a choice.
They should take a step back and take stock of where they are, what they are doing and if they want to continue down that path. If they do, then more power to them. But at least make it an informed choice.
I made that choice. I gave up a successful practice to become a corporate counsel. I make much less now, but I would never give up my time with loved ones, or my activities outside of work, to go back to that never-ending treadmill.
As the years passed, I've come to terms with my dad's death.
Yes, I do have regrets. Still, his children are his legacy and I am comforted by the belief that he would be proud of us if he were alive today.
The writer is a Nominated Member of Parliament and corporate counsel, writing in his personal capacity. His father passed away in November 2003.
So I wrote this one. It's very personal to me. This is a piece that I've wanted to write for quite a while now, and the timing made sense.
After my dad died...
Weekend • November 24, 2007
Siew Kum Hong
I WAS five minutes away in a taxi when my father died.
I still remember that Friday night in November 2003. It was about 7pm when I got the call. It was short and stark.
"Come home quickly, your father fell and he can't make it," my mum sobbed. She hung up without waiting for my response.
I hopped into a cab immediately.
When I was five minutes away, my mum called again. "He's dead, he's dead." The line died.
I told the cabbie my dad had died. He was stunned and didn't say a word more. I felt a little apologetic, hoping that he wasn't superstitious.
When I got home, my mum was wailing beside my dad's lifeless body. He had fallen while walking up the steps to the house. The medics and policemen stood around uncomfortably. I broke down, inconsolable.
My dad was a traditional Chinese father — stern, unaffectionate and always working. I was angry at him over some things, which I never really forgave him for. But I learnt to put that aside and to love him despite that.
That moment came during my final examinations in year three of law school. He was hospitalised for treatment, but fell and was admitted to the ICU. I did not visit him then, but went after my penultimate paper.
When I finally stepped into the ward and saw him, I sobbed. It was just such a tremendous relief to see him.
In retrospect, I'm glad it happened. It was probably the first time he, and my mum, saw how much he meant to me. I also realised that at such times, what he had done before was irrelevant.
Perhaps my greatest regret in life to date was that I could not fulfil his last wish. One morning, as he drove me to the MRT station, he told me that his only unfulfilled wish in life was to see me get married.
He had seen everything else: his children graduating from university and getting good jobs, my brother and sister getting married, my brother giving him grandchildren.
I didn't know what to say. At the time, marriage looked improbable. So, I gave the only response that an uncomfortable child could — a non-committal grunt.
I'm still unmarried. But maybe if he had lived just a few more years, he would have been proud of me. I think he would have been immensely pleased by my appointment as a NMP.
Another major regret was not spending more time with him. In a way, that continues today, because I still don't spend enough time with my mum.
But I know I could certainly be a better son to her and from time to time I resolve to do better.
Some of that is attributable to the demands of today's working world. I was in private practice back then and I frequently treated home like a hotel, leaving for work in the morning and returning late at night. I could go days without seeing another family member.
I don't think that's uncommon for young people. But I wonder about my peers, who are getting to the age when parents are beginning to fall sick and die.
Are they aware that they have only so much time with their parents? Do they understand the compromises represented by long hours in the office?
And do they understand that by the time they do, it might be too late — as it was with me?
Too often, people are so caught up with their careers that they miss out on other things in life, such as family.
Many complain about long working hours — especially in recent times with the booming economy — but they seem to forget that they have a choice.
They should take a step back and take stock of where they are, what they are doing and if they want to continue down that path. If they do, then more power to them. But at least make it an informed choice.
I made that choice. I gave up a successful practice to become a corporate counsel. I make much less now, but I would never give up my time with loved ones, or my activities outside of work, to go back to that never-ending treadmill.
As the years passed, I've come to terms with my dad's death.
Yes, I do have regrets. Still, his children are his legacy and I am comforted by the belief that he would be proud of us if he were alive today.
The writer is a Nominated Member of Parliament and corporate counsel, writing in his personal capacity. His father passed away in November 2003.
Thursday, 8 November 2007
NMP Thio gets threatening note
TODAY ran this story today. When Ansley (the reporter) called me yesterday and told me what had happened, I was speechless and more than a little stunned. I had to take a few minutes to think about what to say.
What the person did was completely unacceptable, and I felt it necessary to put that across in the strongest possible terms. My disagreement with Thio was immaterial, because nothing she said could possibly have justified this sort of action.
Even though this person must surely have nothing to do with the pro-repeal activists I had worked with -- who had been nothing less than professional and principled -- his/her acts have invariably cast a negative light on the pro-repeal camp, which has at all times conducted its efforts in a civil manner.
I do not agree that this person's acts are in any way reflective of how the pro-repeal camp had carried out its campaign. But I also felt it imperative not to detract or qualify my statements to TODAY in any way whatsoever, because this is not the time to posture or try to make any political gains. Such acts undermine the very integrity of the democratic process that I had relied on and wanted to develop, and it is important to stand up and speak up against it.
What the person did was completely unacceptable, and I felt it necessary to put that across in the strongest possible terms. My disagreement with Thio was immaterial, because nothing she said could possibly have justified this sort of action.
Even though this person must surely have nothing to do with the pro-repeal activists I had worked with -- who had been nothing less than professional and principled -- his/her acts have invariably cast a negative light on the pro-repeal camp, which has at all times conducted its efforts in a civil manner.
I do not agree that this person's acts are in any way reflective of how the pro-repeal camp had carried out its campaign. But I also felt it imperative not to detract or qualify my statements to TODAY in any way whatsoever, because this is not the time to posture or try to make any political gains. Such acts undermine the very integrity of the democratic process that I had relied on and wanted to develop, and it is important to stand up and speak up against it.
Thursday, 25 October 2007
A hazy map on public property rights
I wrote this a few weeks back. It was something I had been wanting to write since the news broke that SLA had won against Virtual Map, but just hadn't been able to find the time to do it. I finally got down to it, mostly because the commentary editor of TODAY was leaving and she asked for one last piece.
It came out last week. I thought that was good timing, because I do have many more interests and issues apart from Section 377A, as my speech showed.
SLA wrote a reply, which for some reason I could not locate on the text version of TODAY. The link to the PDF version is here (click on the "Voices" section heading).
Their response did not address two points I had made. Firstly, I asked why they did not say more about their dispute with Virtual Map, when filing the affidavit on behalf of NTUC Income. SLA's response that they were not a party does not address this.
Secondly, my reference to how SLA did not limit Virtual Map's right to deal with the licensed content should be read in the context of the article, i.e. SLA did not limit how/whether Virtual Map could sue alleged infringers, based on SLA licensed content. SLA also did not address this.
A hazy map on public property rights
SLA's actions with regard to Virtual Map case puzzling
Tuesday • October 16, 2007
Siew Kum Hong
Mention "Virtual Map" to a local businessman, and he just might respond with some choice ear-burning words. That was the depth of anger that the company behind Streetdirectory.com aroused a few years back, when it wrote to hundreds of companies demanding damages and legal expenses.
So, I found it curious that there was barely a murmur when a court recently found Virtual Map liable, for infringing the Singapore Land Authority's (SLA's) copyrights in the data that Virtual Map had relied on to create its online maps. I will not discuss that decision in detail, as Virtual Map is reportedly appealing against the court's decision.
But I have found the SLA's conduct throughout all this to be curious. When the news of Virtual Map's actions first broke, many would-be defendants clamoured for the SLA to step in, arguing that the maps in question were owned by the SLA and licensed to Virtual Map.
Indeed, in its lawsuit against Virtual Map, the SLA admitted that it had terminated its licence agreements with Virtual Map because of public outrage over Virtual Map's enforcement actions.
But before that, the SLA remained strangely non-committal even as Virtual Map sued companies resisting their demands. When Virtual Map took NTUC Income to court, NTUC's lawyers filed an affidavit made by an SLA senior manager, which was described by the judge in a later case involving Virtual Map as being "somewhat vague and ambivalent".
Yet, barely two weeks before that affidavit, the SLA had already written to Virtual Map to terminate its licence agreements with Virtual Map.
While the termination of those licence agreements is unlikely to have changed the various courts' conclusion, it was nevertheless a material fact that could well have influenced the strategy of defendants such as NTUC Income.
For instance, if NTUC Income had known of a dispute between the SLA and Virtual Map over the scope of Virtual Map's rights to the maps, it might not have settled with Virtual Map in December 2004. The SLA's explanation that it was seeking legal advice during that period is unsatisfactory, as that would not have precluded the SLA from disclosing the termination of the agreements. So, why did the SLA stay silent for so long?
The SLA's current lawsuit against Virtual Map raises many other interesting questions. What happens to the money that Virtual Map had collected previously, both before and after the termination of its agreements with the SLA? Will Virtual Map be required to pay any part of that to the SLA, and if so, is that justifiable? What about the investigation fees paid to Virtual Map's investigators, who may have been related to Virtual Map?
And do those defendants who had unsuccessfully asked the SLA for assistance have any recourse against the SLA now? Why didn't the SLA disclose its termination of Virtual Map's licences, or the existence of its dispute with Virtual Map, earlier?
The case also throws into sharp focus a bigger issue relating to the exploitation of government-owned intellectual property. In the course of performing their duties, government agencies will create many types of intellectual property, of which the most commercially-valuable will normally be databases of factual information that, practically speaking, cannot be obtained elsewhere.
While there are valid questions on the scope of the copyright, if any, in such factual databases, it is also worth considering how such intellectual property is exploited. The Virtual Map case has demonstrated that the public will not take kindly to any perception that a private entity is profiting, at its expense, from government-owned intellectual property.
In my view, that is only right, since we are all taxpayers and, hence, such intellectual property ultimately belongs to us indirectly. To the extent that government agencies license their intellectual property to private entities, they also have a duty and responsibility to ensure that the intellectual property is not used unethically or in any other manner that unfairly prejudices the public.
Indeed, there is a strong case for arguing that government agencies should not view their intellectual property as revenue-generating asset, but as public property held on trust for Singaporeans and hence to be used only in ways that benefit the public. Furthermore, a reduced focus on revenue generation could create greater incentive for entrepreneurs to build innovative services leveraging off such intellectual property.
In the Virtual Map case, the SLA licensed its data to Virtual Map for a fee, but apparently did nothing to restrict how Virtual Map could deal with the licensed materials. The result? Anger and aggravation, lawsuits all around and unanswered questions aplenty. It's time for the SLA to answer some of them.
The writer is a Nominated Member of Parliament and corporate counsel, commenting in his personal capacity. He was previously in private practice specialising in intellectual property and Internet law.
It came out last week. I thought that was good timing, because I do have many more interests and issues apart from Section 377A, as my speech showed.
SLA wrote a reply, which for some reason I could not locate on the text version of TODAY. The link to the PDF version is here (click on the "Voices" section heading).
Their response did not address two points I had made. Firstly, I asked why they did not say more about their dispute with Virtual Map, when filing the affidavit on behalf of NTUC Income. SLA's response that they were not a party does not address this.
Secondly, my reference to how SLA did not limit Virtual Map's right to deal with the licensed content should be read in the context of the article, i.e. SLA did not limit how/whether Virtual Map could sue alleged infringers, based on SLA licensed content. SLA also did not address this.
A hazy map on public property rights
SLA's actions with regard to Virtual Map case puzzling
Tuesday • October 16, 2007
Siew Kum Hong
Mention "Virtual Map" to a local businessman, and he just might respond with some choice ear-burning words. That was the depth of anger that the company behind Streetdirectory.com aroused a few years back, when it wrote to hundreds of companies demanding damages and legal expenses.
So, I found it curious that there was barely a murmur when a court recently found Virtual Map liable, for infringing the Singapore Land Authority's (SLA's) copyrights in the data that Virtual Map had relied on to create its online maps. I will not discuss that decision in detail, as Virtual Map is reportedly appealing against the court's decision.
But I have found the SLA's conduct throughout all this to be curious. When the news of Virtual Map's actions first broke, many would-be defendants clamoured for the SLA to step in, arguing that the maps in question were owned by the SLA and licensed to Virtual Map.
Indeed, in its lawsuit against Virtual Map, the SLA admitted that it had terminated its licence agreements with Virtual Map because of public outrage over Virtual Map's enforcement actions.
But before that, the SLA remained strangely non-committal even as Virtual Map sued companies resisting their demands. When Virtual Map took NTUC Income to court, NTUC's lawyers filed an affidavit made by an SLA senior manager, which was described by the judge in a later case involving Virtual Map as being "somewhat vague and ambivalent".
Yet, barely two weeks before that affidavit, the SLA had already written to Virtual Map to terminate its licence agreements with Virtual Map.
While the termination of those licence agreements is unlikely to have changed the various courts' conclusion, it was nevertheless a material fact that could well have influenced the strategy of defendants such as NTUC Income.
For instance, if NTUC Income had known of a dispute between the SLA and Virtual Map over the scope of Virtual Map's rights to the maps, it might not have settled with Virtual Map in December 2004. The SLA's explanation that it was seeking legal advice during that period is unsatisfactory, as that would not have precluded the SLA from disclosing the termination of the agreements. So, why did the SLA stay silent for so long?
The SLA's current lawsuit against Virtual Map raises many other interesting questions. What happens to the money that Virtual Map had collected previously, both before and after the termination of its agreements with the SLA? Will Virtual Map be required to pay any part of that to the SLA, and if so, is that justifiable? What about the investigation fees paid to Virtual Map's investigators, who may have been related to Virtual Map?
And do those defendants who had unsuccessfully asked the SLA for assistance have any recourse against the SLA now? Why didn't the SLA disclose its termination of Virtual Map's licences, or the existence of its dispute with Virtual Map, earlier?
The case also throws into sharp focus a bigger issue relating to the exploitation of government-owned intellectual property. In the course of performing their duties, government agencies will create many types of intellectual property, of which the most commercially-valuable will normally be databases of factual information that, practically speaking, cannot be obtained elsewhere.
While there are valid questions on the scope of the copyright, if any, in such factual databases, it is also worth considering how such intellectual property is exploited. The Virtual Map case has demonstrated that the public will not take kindly to any perception that a private entity is profiting, at its expense, from government-owned intellectual property.
In my view, that is only right, since we are all taxpayers and, hence, such intellectual property ultimately belongs to us indirectly. To the extent that government agencies license their intellectual property to private entities, they also have a duty and responsibility to ensure that the intellectual property is not used unethically or in any other manner that unfairly prejudices the public.
Indeed, there is a strong case for arguing that government agencies should not view their intellectual property as revenue-generating asset, but as public property held on trust for Singaporeans and hence to be used only in ways that benefit the public. Furthermore, a reduced focus on revenue generation could create greater incentive for entrepreneurs to build innovative services leveraging off such intellectual property.
In the Virtual Map case, the SLA licensed its data to Virtual Map for a fee, but apparently did nothing to restrict how Virtual Map could deal with the licensed materials. The result? Anger and aggravation, lawsuits all around and unanswered questions aplenty. It's time for the SLA to answer some of them.
The writer is a Nominated Member of Parliament and corporate counsel, commenting in his personal capacity. He was previously in private practice specialising in intellectual property and Internet law.
Wednesday, 29 August 2007
Use CPF only as a cushion for retirement
This article touched on something that I had mentioned before in Parliament, in my Budget speech back in February. The Government has always used CPF as a convenient tool for cutting wage costs when the economy is doing badly. I had, in my Budget speech, touched on some of the drawbacks of doing this. Now that there is so much focus on CPF's crucial role in ensuring a financially-independent retirement, it becomes so much more important that CPF contribution rates are not changed on an ad hoc basis.
Use CPF only as a cushion for retirement
Also, resist temptation of cutting contributions during economic downturns
Wednesday • August 29, 2007
Siew Kum Hong
THE Prime Minister announced sweeping changes to the Central Provident Fund (CPF) scheme at last Sunday's National Day Rally. The past week has seen more details being disclosed, and Minister for Manpower Ng Eng Hen will make a ministerial statement in Parliament next month.
The changes are far-reaching, even more so than the graduated increases in the Minimum Sum (to reach $120,000 by 2013) announced in August 2003. They are aimed at helping Singapore's ageing population be financially independent in its old age, together with other measures such as the proposed re-employment legislation.
The latest announcements have once again focused attention on the primary objective of the CPF scheme, as a compulsory long-term retirement savings scheme. This is welcome, as CPF has over the years taken on other functions, ranging from housing payments to funding education to the management of healthcare costs.
Indeed, in the past year, CPF seems to have taken on an increasingly significant role as a policy instrument with a key role in accomplishing the Government's different objectives, in particular to manage the consequences of the widening income gap and to address the issue of an ageing population.
The Workfare Income Supplement scheme introduced this year is heavily linked to the CPF scheme, especially for casual workers. The CPF also plays an important role in the Additional Housing Grant, which aims to strengthen the role of housing as a crucial pillar in the Government's policy response to the widening income gap and the ageing population. When a grant recipient sells his flat, the grant amount must be paid into the homeowners' CPF accounts.
The key consideration seems to be that CPF is a useful vehicle to ensure that grants and assistance provided to people are not misused, since CPF funds may only be used for certain specified purposes. This is especially important for retirement planning, where a long-term view is necessary in ensuring that funds generate the necessary returns for funding retirement.
Indeed, the Government's own calculations demonstrate the power of compound interest over the long run. As the Prime Minister noted in his speech, it could mean up to $20,000 more in interest. Similarly, deferring the draw-down age for the Minimum Sum by one year means that the Minimum Sum can last for two extra years down the road.
That being the case, I would urge the Government to refrain in future from using CPF as a tool to manage the economy, specifically by cutting the CPF contribution rate (in particular, the employer's contribution rate) when times are bad so as to preserve our cost-effectiveness. This is because of the disruptive effect on people's long-term plans resulting from such changes, especially when the reductions are amplified over time.
Over the past 20 years, the Government has repeatedly cut the CPF contribution rate whenever the economy was doing badly. The rate hit a high of 50 per cent (25 per cent for employers and 25 per cent for employees) in the 1980s, but was cut sharply to 35 per cent (10 per cent to 25 per cent) in 1986 in the wake of the 1985 recession.
By 1994, the rate had been restored to 40 per cent (20 per cent-20 per cent) for those aged 55 and below. But the Asian financial crisis in 1997-1998 saw the Government cutting the contribution rate to 30 per cent (10 per cent-20 per cent). This was restored to 36 per cent (16 per cent-20 per cent) in 2001.
Although the Government had promised to restore the rate to 40 per cent, then-Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong announced in 2003 that 40 per cent was unsustainable and that moving forward, the CPF contribution rate would float between 30 per cent and 36 per cent.
He also announced a 3-percentage-point cut in the rate, to preserve Singapore's cost-competitiveness. This was only partially restored earlier this year, through a 1.5-percentage-point increase that took effect in July.
These swings in the CPF contribution rate would surely have adversely affected most people's retirement planning to varying degrees. That is to say nothing about the impact on their servicing of housing loans, or even education. For the middle and upper classes, all this would have been seriously compounded by the reduction in the CPF salary ceiling from $6,000 to $4,500.
While I accept that it is important to ensure that Singapore remains competitive and that it is always better for Singaporeans to have jobs than be unemployed, the ageing population — and its financial self-sustainability — is a pressing issue that will increasingly preoccupy us in years to come. Changes in the CPF contribution rate affect everybody, and can have exaggerated repercussions over time. It is about time that we resist the temptation to tinker with the rate, however hard the economic going gets.
The writer is a Nominated Member of Parliament and corporate counsel, commenting in his personal capacity.
Use CPF only as a cushion for retirement
Also, resist temptation of cutting contributions during economic downturns
Wednesday • August 29, 2007
Siew Kum Hong
THE Prime Minister announced sweeping changes to the Central Provident Fund (CPF) scheme at last Sunday's National Day Rally. The past week has seen more details being disclosed, and Minister for Manpower Ng Eng Hen will make a ministerial statement in Parliament next month.
The changes are far-reaching, even more so than the graduated increases in the Minimum Sum (to reach $120,000 by 2013) announced in August 2003. They are aimed at helping Singapore's ageing population be financially independent in its old age, together with other measures such as the proposed re-employment legislation.
The latest announcements have once again focused attention on the primary objective of the CPF scheme, as a compulsory long-term retirement savings scheme. This is welcome, as CPF has over the years taken on other functions, ranging from housing payments to funding education to the management of healthcare costs.
Indeed, in the past year, CPF seems to have taken on an increasingly significant role as a policy instrument with a key role in accomplishing the Government's different objectives, in particular to manage the consequences of the widening income gap and to address the issue of an ageing population.
The Workfare Income Supplement scheme introduced this year is heavily linked to the CPF scheme, especially for casual workers. The CPF also plays an important role in the Additional Housing Grant, which aims to strengthen the role of housing as a crucial pillar in the Government's policy response to the widening income gap and the ageing population. When a grant recipient sells his flat, the grant amount must be paid into the homeowners' CPF accounts.
The key consideration seems to be that CPF is a useful vehicle to ensure that grants and assistance provided to people are not misused, since CPF funds may only be used for certain specified purposes. This is especially important for retirement planning, where a long-term view is necessary in ensuring that funds generate the necessary returns for funding retirement.
Indeed, the Government's own calculations demonstrate the power of compound interest over the long run. As the Prime Minister noted in his speech, it could mean up to $20,000 more in interest. Similarly, deferring the draw-down age for the Minimum Sum by one year means that the Minimum Sum can last for two extra years down the road.
That being the case, I would urge the Government to refrain in future from using CPF as a tool to manage the economy, specifically by cutting the CPF contribution rate (in particular, the employer's contribution rate) when times are bad so as to preserve our cost-effectiveness. This is because of the disruptive effect on people's long-term plans resulting from such changes, especially when the reductions are amplified over time.
Over the past 20 years, the Government has repeatedly cut the CPF contribution rate whenever the economy was doing badly. The rate hit a high of 50 per cent (25 per cent for employers and 25 per cent for employees) in the 1980s, but was cut sharply to 35 per cent (10 per cent to 25 per cent) in 1986 in the wake of the 1985 recession.
By 1994, the rate had been restored to 40 per cent (20 per cent-20 per cent) for those aged 55 and below. But the Asian financial crisis in 1997-1998 saw the Government cutting the contribution rate to 30 per cent (10 per cent-20 per cent). This was restored to 36 per cent (16 per cent-20 per cent) in 2001.
Although the Government had promised to restore the rate to 40 per cent, then-Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong announced in 2003 that 40 per cent was unsustainable and that moving forward, the CPF contribution rate would float between 30 per cent and 36 per cent.
He also announced a 3-percentage-point cut in the rate, to preserve Singapore's cost-competitiveness. This was only partially restored earlier this year, through a 1.5-percentage-point increase that took effect in July.
These swings in the CPF contribution rate would surely have adversely affected most people's retirement planning to varying degrees. That is to say nothing about the impact on their servicing of housing loans, or even education. For the middle and upper classes, all this would have been seriously compounded by the reduction in the CPF salary ceiling from $6,000 to $4,500.
While I accept that it is important to ensure that Singapore remains competitive and that it is always better for Singaporeans to have jobs than be unemployed, the ageing population — and its financial self-sustainability — is a pressing issue that will increasingly preoccupy us in years to come. Changes in the CPF contribution rate affect everybody, and can have exaggerated repercussions over time. It is about time that we resist the temptation to tinker with the rate, however hard the economic going gets.
The writer is a Nominated Member of Parliament and corporate counsel, commenting in his personal capacity.
Tuesday, 28 August 2007
Some thoughts on intellectual property rights
slf posted this comment in relation to the Odex posting:
Well, here are some thoughts.
My own views on IP are complex. I have been specialising in the related areas of Internet, technology, IP and media law for the past 6.5 years or so. Most IP lawyers in Singapore hold (or at least publicly espouse) very IP owner-centric views, because that is what they are used to doing since it's hard to make a living from specialising in IP unless you act for IP owners.
I'm not quite the same. My views are a lot more nuanced, even if the realities of newspaper quotes do not do full justice to those subtle nuances. It may be because of my own personal background as a huge music fan (just not so much nowadays due to lack of time), who had in the past availed himself of the "joys" of Napster.
That somewhat more "liberal" side of me has obviously been tempered by growing up, becoming more mature, and yes, having more money which allows me to buy original stuff and to make a statement -- if only to myself -- through how I spend my money (e.g. I like ordering CDs from record labels directly). (Having said that, I must emphasise that I do not believe that high prices justifies infringement, but I do believe that IPR owners should respond to the market signal to cut prices when excessive prices are accompanied by low sales, whether due to infringement or people simply choosing not to buy.) Learning about the law and being in the position that I am has also led me to take a more balanced view of things.
I don't think you can really take a one-size-fits-all approach to the question of "extent in which companies ought to go to enforce their IP rights", because different IP owners will have different models. For instance, in software, you have the proprietary vendors, and then you have the open source vendors. I think each company should -- must -- have the right to enforce their IPRs to the maximum extent permitted by the law.
The real question is what the law should permit. And here is where I do feel that the policy discourse in Singapore is imbalanced. It is thoroughly dominated by rights owners. I have struggled in the past, to try to re-focus the debate on the real objective of IP law, which is not to enrich IPR owners through economic rents by continual expansion of already existing IPRs, but to strike an appropriate balance so as to most effectively incentivise the creation of new IPRs. I have reproduced below two commentaries written by me, that were published in TODAY last year.
Only lately have we started to see some more attempts to inject some balance into the debate -- see, for instance, Burton Ong's recent article in The Straits Times on the potential applicability of the Section 35 fair dealing defence. I really doubt if any court will buy that argument, but it's good just to see fresh voices apart from the usual chorus of voices about the importance of protecting IPRs, the evils of downloaders, the systematic labelling of all infringers as "pirates" even though historically that term has been applied only to criminal commercial distributors and not end-user infringers, etc.
So those are some of my views on IPRs in general.
slf commented about the media coverage on the Odex case having stopped, or at least dramatically reduced, downloading. In principle, if the downloading is infringing (and in this case I do believe that most, if not all, cases of downloading are indeed infringement in terms of what the law says), then I would say that the cessation of such downloading is good. It is a pity that it was accomplished in this manner, and I have stated elsewhere that I will neither support nor condemn Odex's actions (provided that those actions are lawful and duly-authorised, which presumably they are), but I do not believe that a situation of rampant infringement is ultimately good for anyone in the long run.
Some might argue that the inability to download means that one will go without one's fix of anime. My response: "So?" Once upon a time, I would cheered at the thought of free content for all. But that's not a sustainable business model. Anime fans will figure something out -- after all, didn't they also manage to watch anime before the days of P2P networks? It was harder, that's all. But not impossible. Ultimately, it's the same question that confronts anyone with limited resources: how do you apply your resources in the best way to satisfy your wants? I don't think "I want a free lunch" is a defensible response.
As for flying in the owner of BayTSP driving up enforcement costs, that is correct. But costs in lawsuits is a very tricky business in our system. A successful plaintiff is, in general, entitled to recover part of his legal costs (including enforcement costs) from the defendant. The costs recovered typically range from half to two-thirds of the plaintiff's actual costs, so a successful plaintiff in litigation will normally still be out-of-pocket on costs. The costs recovered must also be reasonable. So if the plaintiff had acted unreasonably and spent excessively in winning its case, then it would incur a lot more out-of-pocket costs.
I've explained the above principles to set the context for private settlements. Settlements are, technically, purely a matter of private contract between the settling parties. So the amount of costs to be paid is, in theory, something to be agreed. Unfortunately, in many infringement cases (and I do not know if this is true of Odex), the IPR owner will demand costs but will not quantify them, and the alleged infringer simply has no choice but to either accept them or not. But the principle ought to be the same as in litigation, i.e. unreasonable costs should not be reimbursable, since the IPR owner would not have been able to recover those costs in the first place if it had gone to litigation.
The above is the theory. I accept that actual practice, including in this case, may be quite different. People confronted by Odex will still have to weigh for themselves what course of action they want to take, bearing in mind their own personal circumstances. I only hope to equip the public with some tools to ask the right questions, so as to achieve as fair a result as possible.
Protect, don't stifle
Laws safeguarding intellectual property should not obstruct the creation of new ideas
Wednesday • October 18, 2006
Siew Kum Hong
I HAVE always thought that the policy discourse on intellectual property (IP) law in Singapore was dominated by rights owners, to the near-exclusion of other stakeholders. So it was gladdening to note the Chief Justice's words at a recent legal conference: "We should strive towards the principled development our IP laws so as to continually strike a fair and equitable balance between the interests of all stakeholders in this brave, but wonderful, new world of intellectual property."
The Chief Justice cited the example of "patent trolls", entities who acquire extensive patent portfolios for the primary purpose of obtaining licence fees from companies who may potentially infringe the patents. Unfortunately, there are other instances of IP law being used or extended in ways that may not be balanced. For instance, digital content, such as films, music and software, is frequently delivered using digital rights management (DRM) technology. DRM is underpinned by legislative provisions that outlaw the circumvention of the technological measures used, with certain limited exceptions. (The Intellectual Property Office of Singapore recently conducted a public consultation on whether to add further exceptions.)
But this prohibition is unrelated to the question of whether the intended use of the protected content is permitted. This means that the owner of a digital work can prevent others from using it in ways that the law would otherwise deem appropriate and non-infringing.
For instance, if done properly, existing software can be reverse engineered to create new, competing software. But DRM can be circumvented only to achieve interoperability between software. This means that society has lost the right to reverse engineer DRM-ed software to create new software, even if the same activity may be permissible for non-DRM-ed software. What we can and cannot do becomes controlled by IP owners, not the law.
Patents present another hotly contested issue. Traditionally, software could be patented only as part of some sort of system or machine, and business methods could not be patented. But a 1970s case in the United States basically opened the floodgates in terms of what can be patented in the US. This has led to all manner of dubious software and business method patents in the US, such as Amazon.com's infamous "1-click" patent covering online purchases on a website using only one mouse click.
While Europe continues to prohibit software and business method patents, despite continual efforts to permit software patents, such patents are registrable in Singapore after explicit prohibitions against them were removed in 1995. However, there remains some doubt as to whether the courts will enforce such patents even if they are registered.
This is important, because software and business method patents can be very broad in their application and can cover very fundamental ideas. New technologies can easily infringe software patents, especially if they cover an efficient way of solving a problem. Similarly, business method patents may cover obvious and commonly-used operational processes.
These developments have taken place in an environment where IP owners are constantly clamouring to expand their rights, arguing that having more and broader rights is always good. This is especially so in Singapore, where there are no civil society groups focused on such issues.
And yet, IP law is not just about owners' rights. Instead, it aims to enrich society as a whole (and not just IP owners) by striking an optimal balance between rewarding rights owners and encouraging the creation of more IP, which often requires building on existing IP. It is, therefore, crucial not to veer too far to either side.
Unfortunately, the discourse is often dominated by rights owners engaged in rent-seeking behaviour — that is, trying to increase the value of their existing IP portfolio in ways that do not necessarily or clearly encourage the creation of new IP. For instance, the term of copyright was recently extended from the author's life plus 50 years to life plus 70 years, but does this really increase the incentive for creating new works?
Globally, there is a growing awareness of the dangers of imbalances in IP law. For instance, Australia is considering changes to their provisions on the circumvention of technological measures such as DRM, to link offences to actual infringement of the protected digital work. The British Library recently released a manifesto calling for an update of the United Kingdom's laws, to avoid it becoming, in its chief executive's words, "an ass". Unfortunately, Singapore's hands are largely tied, because many recent changes are mandated by the US-Singapore Free Trade Agreement.
The Chief Justice has acknowledged that "a large proportion of the wealth generated in today's economy assumes the form of IP". But that only makes it imperative to consider all voices and all interests when framing IP laws, to ensure that an appropriate balance is struck. Otherwise, we risk rewarding existing IP owners at the expense of possible future creation of IP.
The writer is a corporate counsel commenting in his personal capacity. He was previously a practising lawyer specialising in technology and intellectual property law.
Criminal downside of copyright laws
Copying from a CD I bought to my iPod shouldn't be a crime
Thursday • November 30, 2006
Siew Kum Hong
Last month, the police raided the homes of seven alleged illegal music downloaders, under a provision of the Copyright Act that took effect in January last year. The section was a landmark development in Singapore copyright law, because it massively expanded the scope of criminal activities.
Almost two years on, perhaps it's time to take stock.
A copyright infringement is a civil wrong — that is, a copyright owner can use a civil lawsuit to enforce his rights, typically through damages and an injunction. An infringement may also be a criminal offence at the same time.
Simplistically speaking, before January last year, infringements in the course of trade, such as distributing or offering for sale articles that the person knew, or ought to have known, were infringing, were criminal offences.
But Section 136(3A) changed that. It outlawed "wilful" copyright infringement that was "significant" or for a "commercial advantage". The trade element is unnecessary.
The other criminal provisions of the Copyright Act require some form of distribution of infringing articles — Section 136(3A) does not. So, someone who downloads a large number of MP3 files without distributing any MP3s to others, could be committing an offence. That is the key difference from the case of the two people who operated an Internet Relay Chat server distributing MP3s.
This provision was mandated by the United States-Singapore Free Trade Agreement. The stated objective was to deter businesses from using pirated software. But the section's broad wording in terms of "infringement" may catch seemingly innocuous behaviour.
Take, for instance, MP3 players such as iPods. To fill your iPod, you can buy digital downloads or you can rip MP3s from your own CDs. But it is not entirely clear whether the latter infringes the copyright.
I may own a physical CD but I only have a licence to play the songs on it for personal purposes. It is unclear whether this licence allows me to make a digital copy of a song for personal use. In fact, CDs used to carry a warning that "unauthorised copying is prohibited", although this is not as common nowadays.
While a defence called "fair dealing" may apply to ripping MP3s from a CD that one owns, it is considered unfair if it adversely affects the potential market for or the value of the copyrighted works in question.
By ripping an MP3, am I adversely affecting the market for the digital download of that song? What about 100 of them, or even 15,000, to fill the capacity of a 30GB iPod? But should ripping MP3s from the CDs I own be considered a crime in the first place?
Equally pernicious are the potential consequences for innovative technology. The hottest web properties right now include YouTube and MySpace. Yet, the posting of copyrighted materials on these sites has made them targets of infringement claims (although YouTube recently announced a slew of licensing deals with record labels, in the wake of its acquisition by Google).
It is not clear whether these services are protected under copyright law. If not, then the scale of their operations would almost certainly mean that, if they had been located in Singapore, they would have run foul of Section 136(3A). The company officers could be personally liable for the offence as well.
Many disruptive new technologies have been targeted by copyright owners. Radio, film, television and audio and video-cassette recorders had their turns in the last century. More recently, peer-to-peer networks such as Napster, Grokster and Kazaa have found themselves at the losing end of copyright lawsuits in the US and Australia.
But those were civil lawsuits, where the risk was purely financial. With Section 136(3A), there is a risk of criminal sanctions. People may risk losing their shirts in a promising new technology, but probably not losing their freedom. Technopreneurs with groundbreaking technologies will avoid setting up shop in Singapore, if that could expose them to jail time.
The fundamental question is whether copyright infringements without a trade element — however significant the degree — should be criminalised. Should the criminal process be used like this, essentially to enforce civil rights?
For instance, in the US, the legal weapon of choice against downloading is civil lawsuits, of which tens of thousands have been filed. Why is Singapore different?
Using the criminal process to combat intellectual property infringements is popular with rights owners because it is easier and cheaper for them. But it is not necessarily better for society as a whole and we need to be careful when considering requests for more criminal sanctions.
While we await the outcome of the ongoing police investigations arising from the raids, let us ask ourselves: Has Singapore as a whole benefited from this law?
The writer is a corporate counsel commenting in his personal capacity.
"I wonder if you will share your opinion on the extent in which companies ought to go to enforce their IP rights.
It appears that Odex's aim to stop illegal downloading has definitely
succeeded especially with the media attention. (Though, illegal behaviour can never be totally erradicated.)
The ongoing lawsuit and flying in experts from the US will surely drive up enforcement costs which would in turn have to be obtained from settlements costs. Doesn't this sound like a vicious cycle?
Your views and legal perspective are really needed for a community in confusion.Your views and legal perspective are really needed for a community in confusion."
Well, here are some thoughts.
My own views on IP are complex. I have been specialising in the related areas of Internet, technology, IP and media law for the past 6.5 years or so. Most IP lawyers in Singapore hold (or at least publicly espouse) very IP owner-centric views, because that is what they are used to doing since it's hard to make a living from specialising in IP unless you act for IP owners.
I'm not quite the same. My views are a lot more nuanced, even if the realities of newspaper quotes do not do full justice to those subtle nuances. It may be because of my own personal background as a huge music fan (just not so much nowadays due to lack of time), who had in the past availed himself of the "joys" of Napster.
That somewhat more "liberal" side of me has obviously been tempered by growing up, becoming more mature, and yes, having more money which allows me to buy original stuff and to make a statement -- if only to myself -- through how I spend my money (e.g. I like ordering CDs from record labels directly). (Having said that, I must emphasise that I do not believe that high prices justifies infringement, but I do believe that IPR owners should respond to the market signal to cut prices when excessive prices are accompanied by low sales, whether due to infringement or people simply choosing not to buy.) Learning about the law and being in the position that I am has also led me to take a more balanced view of things.
I don't think you can really take a one-size-fits-all approach to the question of "extent in which companies ought to go to enforce their IP rights", because different IP owners will have different models. For instance, in software, you have the proprietary vendors, and then you have the open source vendors. I think each company should -- must -- have the right to enforce their IPRs to the maximum extent permitted by the law.
The real question is what the law should permit. And here is where I do feel that the policy discourse in Singapore is imbalanced. It is thoroughly dominated by rights owners. I have struggled in the past, to try to re-focus the debate on the real objective of IP law, which is not to enrich IPR owners through economic rents by continual expansion of already existing IPRs, but to strike an appropriate balance so as to most effectively incentivise the creation of new IPRs. I have reproduced below two commentaries written by me, that were published in TODAY last year.
Only lately have we started to see some more attempts to inject some balance into the debate -- see, for instance, Burton Ong's recent article in The Straits Times on the potential applicability of the Section 35 fair dealing defence. I really doubt if any court will buy that argument, but it's good just to see fresh voices apart from the usual chorus of voices about the importance of protecting IPRs, the evils of downloaders, the systematic labelling of all infringers as "pirates" even though historically that term has been applied only to criminal commercial distributors and not end-user infringers, etc.
So those are some of my views on IPRs in general.
slf commented about the media coverage on the Odex case having stopped, or at least dramatically reduced, downloading. In principle, if the downloading is infringing (and in this case I do believe that most, if not all, cases of downloading are indeed infringement in terms of what the law says), then I would say that the cessation of such downloading is good. It is a pity that it was accomplished in this manner, and I have stated elsewhere that I will neither support nor condemn Odex's actions (provided that those actions are lawful and duly-authorised, which presumably they are), but I do not believe that a situation of rampant infringement is ultimately good for anyone in the long run.
Some might argue that the inability to download means that one will go without one's fix of anime. My response: "So?" Once upon a time, I would cheered at the thought of free content for all. But that's not a sustainable business model. Anime fans will figure something out -- after all, didn't they also manage to watch anime before the days of P2P networks? It was harder, that's all. But not impossible. Ultimately, it's the same question that confronts anyone with limited resources: how do you apply your resources in the best way to satisfy your wants? I don't think "I want a free lunch" is a defensible response.
As for flying in the owner of BayTSP driving up enforcement costs, that is correct. But costs in lawsuits is a very tricky business in our system. A successful plaintiff is, in general, entitled to recover part of his legal costs (including enforcement costs) from the defendant. The costs recovered typically range from half to two-thirds of the plaintiff's actual costs, so a successful plaintiff in litigation will normally still be out-of-pocket on costs. The costs recovered must also be reasonable. So if the plaintiff had acted unreasonably and spent excessively in winning its case, then it would incur a lot more out-of-pocket costs.
I've explained the above principles to set the context for private settlements. Settlements are, technically, purely a matter of private contract between the settling parties. So the amount of costs to be paid is, in theory, something to be agreed. Unfortunately, in many infringement cases (and I do not know if this is true of Odex), the IPR owner will demand costs but will not quantify them, and the alleged infringer simply has no choice but to either accept them or not. But the principle ought to be the same as in litigation, i.e. unreasonable costs should not be reimbursable, since the IPR owner would not have been able to recover those costs in the first place if it had gone to litigation.
The above is the theory. I accept that actual practice, including in this case, may be quite different. People confronted by Odex will still have to weigh for themselves what course of action they want to take, bearing in mind their own personal circumstances. I only hope to equip the public with some tools to ask the right questions, so as to achieve as fair a result as possible.
Protect, don't stifle
Laws safeguarding intellectual property should not obstruct the creation of new ideas
Wednesday • October 18, 2006
Siew Kum Hong
I HAVE always thought that the policy discourse on intellectual property (IP) law in Singapore was dominated by rights owners, to the near-exclusion of other stakeholders. So it was gladdening to note the Chief Justice's words at a recent legal conference: "We should strive towards the principled development our IP laws so as to continually strike a fair and equitable balance between the interests of all stakeholders in this brave, but wonderful, new world of intellectual property."
The Chief Justice cited the example of "patent trolls", entities who acquire extensive patent portfolios for the primary purpose of obtaining licence fees from companies who may potentially infringe the patents. Unfortunately, there are other instances of IP law being used or extended in ways that may not be balanced. For instance, digital content, such as films, music and software, is frequently delivered using digital rights management (DRM) technology. DRM is underpinned by legislative provisions that outlaw the circumvention of the technological measures used, with certain limited exceptions. (The Intellectual Property Office of Singapore recently conducted a public consultation on whether to add further exceptions.)
But this prohibition is unrelated to the question of whether the intended use of the protected content is permitted. This means that the owner of a digital work can prevent others from using it in ways that the law would otherwise deem appropriate and non-infringing.
For instance, if done properly, existing software can be reverse engineered to create new, competing software. But DRM can be circumvented only to achieve interoperability between software. This means that society has lost the right to reverse engineer DRM-ed software to create new software, even if the same activity may be permissible for non-DRM-ed software. What we can and cannot do becomes controlled by IP owners, not the law.
Patents present another hotly contested issue. Traditionally, software could be patented only as part of some sort of system or machine, and business methods could not be patented. But a 1970s case in the United States basically opened the floodgates in terms of what can be patented in the US. This has led to all manner of dubious software and business method patents in the US, such as Amazon.com's infamous "1-click" patent covering online purchases on a website using only one mouse click.
While Europe continues to prohibit software and business method patents, despite continual efforts to permit software patents, such patents are registrable in Singapore after explicit prohibitions against them were removed in 1995. However, there remains some doubt as to whether the courts will enforce such patents even if they are registered.
This is important, because software and business method patents can be very broad in their application and can cover very fundamental ideas. New technologies can easily infringe software patents, especially if they cover an efficient way of solving a problem. Similarly, business method patents may cover obvious and commonly-used operational processes.
These developments have taken place in an environment where IP owners are constantly clamouring to expand their rights, arguing that having more and broader rights is always good. This is especially so in Singapore, where there are no civil society groups focused on such issues.
And yet, IP law is not just about owners' rights. Instead, it aims to enrich society as a whole (and not just IP owners) by striking an optimal balance between rewarding rights owners and encouraging the creation of more IP, which often requires building on existing IP. It is, therefore, crucial not to veer too far to either side.
Unfortunately, the discourse is often dominated by rights owners engaged in rent-seeking behaviour — that is, trying to increase the value of their existing IP portfolio in ways that do not necessarily or clearly encourage the creation of new IP. For instance, the term of copyright was recently extended from the author's life plus 50 years to life plus 70 years, but does this really increase the incentive for creating new works?
Globally, there is a growing awareness of the dangers of imbalances in IP law. For instance, Australia is considering changes to their provisions on the circumvention of technological measures such as DRM, to link offences to actual infringement of the protected digital work. The British Library recently released a manifesto calling for an update of the United Kingdom's laws, to avoid it becoming, in its chief executive's words, "an ass". Unfortunately, Singapore's hands are largely tied, because many recent changes are mandated by the US-Singapore Free Trade Agreement.
The Chief Justice has acknowledged that "a large proportion of the wealth generated in today's economy assumes the form of IP". But that only makes it imperative to consider all voices and all interests when framing IP laws, to ensure that an appropriate balance is struck. Otherwise, we risk rewarding existing IP owners at the expense of possible future creation of IP.
The writer is a corporate counsel commenting in his personal capacity. He was previously a practising lawyer specialising in technology and intellectual property law.
Criminal downside of copyright laws
Copying from a CD I bought to my iPod shouldn't be a crime
Thursday • November 30, 2006
Siew Kum Hong
Last month, the police raided the homes of seven alleged illegal music downloaders, under a provision of the Copyright Act that took effect in January last year. The section was a landmark development in Singapore copyright law, because it massively expanded the scope of criminal activities.
Almost two years on, perhaps it's time to take stock.
A copyright infringement is a civil wrong — that is, a copyright owner can use a civil lawsuit to enforce his rights, typically through damages and an injunction. An infringement may also be a criminal offence at the same time.
Simplistically speaking, before January last year, infringements in the course of trade, such as distributing or offering for sale articles that the person knew, or ought to have known, were infringing, were criminal offences.
But Section 136(3A) changed that. It outlawed "wilful" copyright infringement that was "significant" or for a "commercial advantage". The trade element is unnecessary.
The other criminal provisions of the Copyright Act require some form of distribution of infringing articles — Section 136(3A) does not. So, someone who downloads a large number of MP3 files without distributing any MP3s to others, could be committing an offence. That is the key difference from the case of the two people who operated an Internet Relay Chat server distributing MP3s.
This provision was mandated by the United States-Singapore Free Trade Agreement. The stated objective was to deter businesses from using pirated software. But the section's broad wording in terms of "infringement" may catch seemingly innocuous behaviour.
Take, for instance, MP3 players such as iPods. To fill your iPod, you can buy digital downloads or you can rip MP3s from your own CDs. But it is not entirely clear whether the latter infringes the copyright.
I may own a physical CD but I only have a licence to play the songs on it for personal purposes. It is unclear whether this licence allows me to make a digital copy of a song for personal use. In fact, CDs used to carry a warning that "unauthorised copying is prohibited", although this is not as common nowadays.
While a defence called "fair dealing" may apply to ripping MP3s from a CD that one owns, it is considered unfair if it adversely affects the potential market for or the value of the copyrighted works in question.
By ripping an MP3, am I adversely affecting the market for the digital download of that song? What about 100 of them, or even 15,000, to fill the capacity of a 30GB iPod? But should ripping MP3s from the CDs I own be considered a crime in the first place?
Equally pernicious are the potential consequences for innovative technology. The hottest web properties right now include YouTube and MySpace. Yet, the posting of copyrighted materials on these sites has made them targets of infringement claims (although YouTube recently announced a slew of licensing deals with record labels, in the wake of its acquisition by Google).
It is not clear whether these services are protected under copyright law. If not, then the scale of their operations would almost certainly mean that, if they had been located in Singapore, they would have run foul of Section 136(3A). The company officers could be personally liable for the offence as well.
Many disruptive new technologies have been targeted by copyright owners. Radio, film, television and audio and video-cassette recorders had their turns in the last century. More recently, peer-to-peer networks such as Napster, Grokster and Kazaa have found themselves at the losing end of copyright lawsuits in the US and Australia.
But those were civil lawsuits, where the risk was purely financial. With Section 136(3A), there is a risk of criminal sanctions. People may risk losing their shirts in a promising new technology, but probably not losing their freedom. Technopreneurs with groundbreaking technologies will avoid setting up shop in Singapore, if that could expose them to jail time.
The fundamental question is whether copyright infringements without a trade element — however significant the degree — should be criminalised. Should the criminal process be used like this, essentially to enforce civil rights?
For instance, in the US, the legal weapon of choice against downloading is civil lawsuits, of which tens of thousands have been filed. Why is Singapore different?
Using the criminal process to combat intellectual property infringements is popular with rights owners because it is easier and cheaper for them. But it is not necessarily better for society as a whole and we need to be careful when considering requests for more criminal sanctions.
While we await the outcome of the ongoing police investigations arising from the raids, let us ask ourselves: Has Singapore as a whole benefited from this law?
The writer is a corporate counsel commenting in his personal capacity.
Monday, 13 August 2007
Now for a closer look at the law
TODAY asked me to write this one, and it's a bit of a hot potato. I knew that when I started on this piece. It seemed to me quite likely that I'd end up offending everyone in some way.
En bloc is an incredibly emotive issue, and understandably so. I'd be mad as hell if I had to sell my house when I didn't want to. The stories of coercion and underhanded methods highlight the unpleasantness when sheer, naked greed gets out of hand. Add to that the envy, even jealousy, of common people without the means to ride on this apparently surefire gravy train, and you have a very potent mix indeed.
The Horizon Towers case places many of those elements front and center. There is a lot of money at stake -- the big bucks due to the sellers back in February have now been eclipsed by the bigger bucks that the buyers would have already made if the sale had gone through, thanks to the market's exponential rise. There is jealousy, of the neighbouring Grangeford which parlayed a four-month delay into a deal more than twice as sweet.
And there is suspense aplenty, now that the owners have decided not to extend the deadline for the Collective Sale Agreement (if I remember correctly from the news reports, it would have expired on 11 August 2007). That decision, coupled with the decision to appeal the Strata Titles Board's decision, means that the owners are betting that the High Court would reverse the Board's decision (which would mean that the sellers have not breached the Sale and Purchase Agreement with the purchasers), but that any such reversal would not result in the sale being consummated at the original price.
That's a bit of a gamble. Firstly, the Board has not released its grounds for decision, which means that the owners could not possibly evaluate the chances of success with that much certainty. Secondly, under the Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act, decisions of the Board can be appealed only on a point of law. This means that if the Board had based its decision on a finding of fact (as opposed to a point of law), that finding of fact cannot be appealed. Finally, based on my brief skim of the relevant legislation, it is not clear to me that the High Court would, if it does decide to reverse the Board's decision, not at the same time grant an order for collective sale, since the original application would then have been good in law and was made before the expiry of the SPA.
On a more general note, I'm not personally convinced that the objective of continual urban rejuvenation warrants the heartache and psychic costs of en bloc processes. A recent Straits Times article on some landmark estates that are being torn down raises very valid issues as to the destruction of our physical memories and architectural heritage.
And in many ways, it becomes self-fulfilling -- the very statutory mechanism designed to ensure renewal, which as I understand it is unique in the world, destroys the incentive for home-owners to maintain their estates, since they know that they can simply cash out of a decrepit estate through a collective sale if the property market allows.
It's quite clear that the status quo is unsatisfactory on so many levels and in so many aspects. When the Ministry of Law conducted its public consultation exercise on legislative reforms back in April and May, it stated its expectation that the amendments would be enacted by Q3 of this year. Well, we only have two Parliamentary sittings left (in August and September) if that target is going to be achieved. It would not come a moment too soon.
Now for a closer look at the law
Weekend • August 11, 2007
Siew Kum Hong
WHAT a difference six months make. The Horizon Towers collective sale grabbed headlines with its benchmark-setting pricing, but later soured when the neighbouring Grangeford was marketed (and eventually sold) at more than double the price on a per square foot of potential gross floor area basis.
In the past week, the elation greeting the dismissal — the first in seven years — by the Strata Titles Board (STB) of the application for a collective sale order has turned to worry and fear in the face of threatened lawsuits.
The STB has yet to issue the grounds of its decision or to provide any details other than that the application was dismissed "on technical grounds".
Still, solicitors for the purchasers — Hotel Properties Limited, Morgan Stanley Real Estate and Qatar Investment Authority — have wasted no time in issuing a letter of demand to the majority sellers for allegedly breaching the sale and purchase agreement (SPA), in failing to make a proper application for the collective sale. Clearly, this move was all about money — and there's a lot of it.
Since the deal was struck in February, the property market has skyrocketed. The buyers' paper gain is estimated at between $800 million and $1 billion, representing returns of 160 per cent to 200 per cent after just six months.
As Senior Counsel K Shanmugam, representing the buyers, told Channel NewsAsia: "It's a substantial loss."
The STB dismissal and the subsequent legal maneuvering will have sent reverberations throughout the entire en bloc market in Singapore.
Fundamentally, it drives home the point to prospective en bloc sellers that, just like any other commercial transaction, there are very real commercial and legal risks in collective sales.It is a truism that risk and rewards go hand in hand, and collective sales are no different.
And the risks are heightened when such huge sums are at stake.
The 173 majority sellers in Horizon Towers are finding this out the hard way — while each seller stood to pocket $2.3 to $4 million from the sale, they now face up to $5.78 million each in potential liability. To be fair to the buyers, they also undertook risks in the blockbuster deal.
The figure $500 million might look like a bargain now, but it set a record back in February. If the market had crashed in March, few would have sympathised with the buyers for their paper loss. What is sauce for the goose must also be sauce for the gander.
After all, it was an arms-length transaction with all parties having their own professional advisers. When so many millions are at stake, it is only fair to treat all parties involved as big boys able to protect their own interests. It seems disingenuous to me, for en bloc sellers to claim they were not aware of their legal obligations.
With so much at stake, inexperienced sellers could and should have engaged lawyers to advise them personally. It is the sellers' own responsibility to ensure they understand all their liabilities and comply with all legal obligations.They also could and should have negotiated for terms they are comfortable with.
If a seller is uncomfortable with the collective sale agreement (CSA) which binds the sellers collectively, he or she could always not sign it. If the concern is over the SPA with the purchaser, then a seller can seek to impose greater controls and oversight over the actions of the sale committee before signing the CSA. It is difficult to sympathise with a seller who sees only the promised dollar signs and signs without fully understanding its implications.
These include a seller's potential liability to purchasers for another seller's default under the SPA, or the typical obligation under the CSA to indemnify the other sellers for losses arising from his or her own breach.
The next developments in Horizon Towers will be very keenly-watched.
While I would not underestimate the buyers' resolve to pursue legal action, actual litigation would not be in anyone's best interest and is hence unlikely. The two prior dismissals by STB in 2000 are instructive — in both cases, the majority sellers succeeded on the second try.
What is indisputable, however, is that there is an urgent need for perceived deficiencies and controversies in the existing law to be resolved. The Law Ministry had conducted a public consultation exercise on this earlier in the year. Even though the en bloc market may be slowing down, legislative reform in this area — such as clarifying how sales committees are appointed — would still be none too soon.
The writer is a Nominated Member of Parliament and corporate counsel, commenting in his personal capacity.
En bloc is an incredibly emotive issue, and understandably so. I'd be mad as hell if I had to sell my house when I didn't want to. The stories of coercion and underhanded methods highlight the unpleasantness when sheer, naked greed gets out of hand. Add to that the envy, even jealousy, of common people without the means to ride on this apparently surefire gravy train, and you have a very potent mix indeed.
The Horizon Towers case places many of those elements front and center. There is a lot of money at stake -- the big bucks due to the sellers back in February have now been eclipsed by the bigger bucks that the buyers would have already made if the sale had gone through, thanks to the market's exponential rise. There is jealousy, of the neighbouring Grangeford which parlayed a four-month delay into a deal more than twice as sweet.
And there is suspense aplenty, now that the owners have decided not to extend the deadline for the Collective Sale Agreement (if I remember correctly from the news reports, it would have expired on 11 August 2007). That decision, coupled with the decision to appeal the Strata Titles Board's decision, means that the owners are betting that the High Court would reverse the Board's decision (which would mean that the sellers have not breached the Sale and Purchase Agreement with the purchasers), but that any such reversal would not result in the sale being consummated at the original price.
That's a bit of a gamble. Firstly, the Board has not released its grounds for decision, which means that the owners could not possibly evaluate the chances of success with that much certainty. Secondly, under the Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act, decisions of the Board can be appealed only on a point of law. This means that if the Board had based its decision on a finding of fact (as opposed to a point of law), that finding of fact cannot be appealed. Finally, based on my brief skim of the relevant legislation, it is not clear to me that the High Court would, if it does decide to reverse the Board's decision, not at the same time grant an order for collective sale, since the original application would then have been good in law and was made before the expiry of the SPA.
On a more general note, I'm not personally convinced that the objective of continual urban rejuvenation warrants the heartache and psychic costs of en bloc processes. A recent Straits Times article on some landmark estates that are being torn down raises very valid issues as to the destruction of our physical memories and architectural heritage.
And in many ways, it becomes self-fulfilling -- the very statutory mechanism designed to ensure renewal, which as I understand it is unique in the world, destroys the incentive for home-owners to maintain their estates, since they know that they can simply cash out of a decrepit estate through a collective sale if the property market allows.
It's quite clear that the status quo is unsatisfactory on so many levels and in so many aspects. When the Ministry of Law conducted its public consultation exercise on legislative reforms back in April and May, it stated its expectation that the amendments would be enacted by Q3 of this year. Well, we only have two Parliamentary sittings left (in August and September) if that target is going to be achieved. It would not come a moment too soon.
Now for a closer look at the law
Weekend • August 11, 2007
Siew Kum Hong
WHAT a difference six months make. The Horizon Towers collective sale grabbed headlines with its benchmark-setting pricing, but later soured when the neighbouring Grangeford was marketed (and eventually sold) at more than double the price on a per square foot of potential gross floor area basis.
In the past week, the elation greeting the dismissal — the first in seven years — by the Strata Titles Board (STB) of the application for a collective sale order has turned to worry and fear in the face of threatened lawsuits.
The STB has yet to issue the grounds of its decision or to provide any details other than that the application was dismissed "on technical grounds".
Still, solicitors for the purchasers — Hotel Properties Limited, Morgan Stanley Real Estate and Qatar Investment Authority — have wasted no time in issuing a letter of demand to the majority sellers for allegedly breaching the sale and purchase agreement (SPA), in failing to make a proper application for the collective sale. Clearly, this move was all about money — and there's a lot of it.
Since the deal was struck in February, the property market has skyrocketed. The buyers' paper gain is estimated at between $800 million and $1 billion, representing returns of 160 per cent to 200 per cent after just six months.
As Senior Counsel K Shanmugam, representing the buyers, told Channel NewsAsia: "It's a substantial loss."
The STB dismissal and the subsequent legal maneuvering will have sent reverberations throughout the entire en bloc market in Singapore.
Fundamentally, it drives home the point to prospective en bloc sellers that, just like any other commercial transaction, there are very real commercial and legal risks in collective sales.It is a truism that risk and rewards go hand in hand, and collective sales are no different.
And the risks are heightened when such huge sums are at stake.
The 173 majority sellers in Horizon Towers are finding this out the hard way — while each seller stood to pocket $2.3 to $4 million from the sale, they now face up to $5.78 million each in potential liability. To be fair to the buyers, they also undertook risks in the blockbuster deal.
The figure $500 million might look like a bargain now, but it set a record back in February. If the market had crashed in March, few would have sympathised with the buyers for their paper loss. What is sauce for the goose must also be sauce for the gander.
After all, it was an arms-length transaction with all parties having their own professional advisers. When so many millions are at stake, it is only fair to treat all parties involved as big boys able to protect their own interests. It seems disingenuous to me, for en bloc sellers to claim they were not aware of their legal obligations.
With so much at stake, inexperienced sellers could and should have engaged lawyers to advise them personally. It is the sellers' own responsibility to ensure they understand all their liabilities and comply with all legal obligations.They also could and should have negotiated for terms they are comfortable with.
If a seller is uncomfortable with the collective sale agreement (CSA) which binds the sellers collectively, he or she could always not sign it. If the concern is over the SPA with the purchaser, then a seller can seek to impose greater controls and oversight over the actions of the sale committee before signing the CSA. It is difficult to sympathise with a seller who sees only the promised dollar signs and signs without fully understanding its implications.
These include a seller's potential liability to purchasers for another seller's default under the SPA, or the typical obligation under the CSA to indemnify the other sellers for losses arising from his or her own breach.
The next developments in Horizon Towers will be very keenly-watched.
While I would not underestimate the buyers' resolve to pursue legal action, actual litigation would not be in anyone's best interest and is hence unlikely. The two prior dismissals by STB in 2000 are instructive — in both cases, the majority sellers succeeded on the second try.
What is indisputable, however, is that there is an urgent need for perceived deficiencies and controversies in the existing law to be resolved. The Law Ministry had conducted a public consultation exercise on this earlier in the year. Even though the en bloc market may be slowing down, legislative reform in this area — such as clarifying how sales committees are appointed — would still be none too soon.
The writer is a Nominated Member of Parliament and corporate counsel, commenting in his personal capacity.
Thursday, 28 June 2007
Nets fee increase 'did not breach law'
TOAY contacted me for a quote on this story, and I obliged. But I actually said something more which was omitted, and to be honest I don't blame the reporter for leaving it out. It's not a soundbite, and it might not go down well.
I basically said that both sides had their own points, and elaborated a bit on that -- this was as reported in the article. But I also went on to point out that this is actually a more fundamental issue about how Singapore is run: what do we do when the free market meets a social goal?
NETS was created as part of the drive towards a cashless society. But NETS is made up of the 3 local banks, all private profit-maximising entities (even if DBS is a Temasek-linked company). So there is a tension between NETS' role as a profit-maximising entity, and its public service in driving society's adoption of cashless modes of payment.
In this case, obviously profit maximisation and the free market won. But is that necessarily the most desirable result? I'm not necessarily so sure, and this is something that I feel is quite endemic in Singapore.
When it comes to charges and fees, the economic/financial argument and justification is almost always framed in a very narrow context, of cost and a reasonable profit. But such arguments fail to take into account other relevant factors. From the perspective of the private profit-maximising entity, that is rightly so.
But that is not the only valid perspective to consider. If and when you change the frame of reference, the correct decisoin could suddenly look very different. My wish is that at some point, such other points of view will get more of a hearing than they already do.
Nets fee increase 'did not breach law'
Competition Commission says alternative payment methods are available
THE increase had the consumer watchdog crying foul, but the Competition Commission of Singapore says the Network for Electronic Transfers' (Nets) decision to raise fees did not breach competition law.
In a statement yesterday, the commission said the hike "does not amount to an infringement of Section 47 of the Competition Act".
In particular, alternative payment methods such as credit, debit and EZ-Link cards, were available to consumers, the commission pointed out. It also clarified that regulating pricing decisions was not within the Act's purview.
Under Section 47, firms with dominant market power cannot abuse their power by acting in ways that are anti-competitive, such as using predatory pricing to prevent a new, more efficient competitor from competing on the merits of its goods and services.
Earlier this month, the Consumers' Association of Singapore (Case) had protested against Nets' "unjustified" decision to raise the transaction fee levied on merchants. Case felt Nets was abusing its dominant position".
The Nets platform, according to Case, was so widely used and accepted that merchants had little choice but to accept the new fee — which will be raised come July to between 1.5 and 1.8 per cent of each transaction, from 0.45 or 0.55 per cent.
Nets had said it was forced to raise fees to keep up with the competition posed by debit and credit facilities, and that its new fees were still lower than what those facilities charged.
Yesterday, Case president Yeo Guat Kwang said that he was "deeply disappointed" by the commission's decision.
He told Today he disagreed that debit and credit were alternatives to Nets as "there are also many who only have Nets as a cashless payment option".
Case said banks had the responsibility to support Nets and keep interchange fees low: "Unfettered and unrestrained transaction fees increases will only serve to render Nets uncompetitive and less popular among consumers … accelerating its demise. We will all be worse off should that happen."
Its immediate concern is that retailers may pass the higher fees on to consumers. The association has already received two complaints of this nature, ahead of the hike.
Nets said on its website that it welcomed the commission's decision. Lawyer and Nominated Member of Parliament Siew Kum Hong felt that both Case and Nets had their "fair points".
"Nets was part of the effort in the drive towards a cashless society, and to benefit the public, so there was a public service element at the beginning," he said. "So Case was right to say it's not really the same as debit and credit cards."
But as a business, Nets has to watch its bottomline. "In the first place, Nets' fees are still lower than the debit card and credit card charges," he said. "In that sense, they are not abusing their power. And as a private entity, it's unfair to expect them to act like a public service."
I basically said that both sides had their own points, and elaborated a bit on that -- this was as reported in the article. But I also went on to point out that this is actually a more fundamental issue about how Singapore is run: what do we do when the free market meets a social goal?
NETS was created as part of the drive towards a cashless society. But NETS is made up of the 3 local banks, all private profit-maximising entities (even if DBS is a Temasek-linked company). So there is a tension between NETS' role as a profit-maximising entity, and its public service in driving society's adoption of cashless modes of payment.
In this case, obviously profit maximisation and the free market won. But is that necessarily the most desirable result? I'm not necessarily so sure, and this is something that I feel is quite endemic in Singapore.
When it comes to charges and fees, the economic/financial argument and justification is almost always framed in a very narrow context, of cost and a reasonable profit. But such arguments fail to take into account other relevant factors. From the perspective of the private profit-maximising entity, that is rightly so.
But that is not the only valid perspective to consider. If and when you change the frame of reference, the correct decisoin could suddenly look very different. My wish is that at some point, such other points of view will get more of a hearing than they already do.
Nets fee increase 'did not breach law'
Competition Commission says alternative payment methods are available
Tuesday • June 26, 2007
Lin Yanqin
In a statement yesterday, the commission said the hike "does not amount to an infringement of Section 47 of the Competition Act".
In particular, alternative payment methods such as credit, debit and EZ-Link cards, were available to consumers, the commission pointed out. It also clarified that regulating pricing decisions was not within the Act's purview.
Under Section 47, firms with dominant market power cannot abuse their power by acting in ways that are anti-competitive, such as using predatory pricing to prevent a new, more efficient competitor from competing on the merits of its goods and services.
Earlier this month, the Consumers' Association of Singapore (Case) had protested against Nets' "unjustified" decision to raise the transaction fee levied on merchants. Case felt Nets was abusing its dominant position".
The Nets platform, according to Case, was so widely used and accepted that merchants had little choice but to accept the new fee — which will be raised come July to between 1.5 and 1.8 per cent of each transaction, from 0.45 or 0.55 per cent.
Nets had said it was forced to raise fees to keep up with the competition posed by debit and credit facilities, and that its new fees were still lower than what those facilities charged.
Yesterday, Case president Yeo Guat Kwang said that he was "deeply disappointed" by the commission's decision.
He told Today he disagreed that debit and credit were alternatives to Nets as "there are also many who only have Nets as a cashless payment option".
Case said banks had the responsibility to support Nets and keep interchange fees low: "Unfettered and unrestrained transaction fees increases will only serve to render Nets uncompetitive and less popular among consumers … accelerating its demise. We will all be worse off should that happen."
Its immediate concern is that retailers may pass the higher fees on to consumers. The association has already received two complaints of this nature, ahead of the hike.
Nets said on its website that it welcomed the commission's decision. Lawyer and Nominated Member of Parliament Siew Kum Hong felt that both Case and Nets had their "fair points".
"Nets was part of the effort in the drive towards a cashless society, and to benefit the public, so there was a public service element at the beginning," he said. "So Case was right to say it's not really the same as debit and credit cards."
But as a business, Nets has to watch its bottomline. "In the first place, Nets' fees are still lower than the debit card and credit card charges," he said. "In that sense, they are not abusing their power. And as a private entity, it's unfair to expect them to act like a public service."
Sunday, 24 June 2007
Keep elderly from flying S'pore coop
The first three paragraphs explain the inspiration for this piece. It is not new, but in the current ongoing focus on getting old people to keep working on and on and on, I think it's important to lose sight of this group of better-off Singaporeans. The looming prospect of 6.5 million people on this island is also a little intimidating.
Keep elderly from flying S'pore coop
Society's focus should also include the higher-income, who have wider options
Wednesday • June 20, 2007
Siew Kum Hong
AS with most young people, I have never really thought much about growing old or retirement. But that has been on my mind lately, resulting from separate comments by two older acquaintances, both professionals who should be on the verge of comfortable retirement.
One felt Singapore was already too crowded for him. He believed it would be "impossible to retire gracefully", given the expected future population of 6.5 million. His children, who find Singapore too stifling, have already left or are planning to leave.
The other, who is single, said somewhat morbidly that he intended to retire and live in Malaysia after his mother dies. His feelings may be best described as disenchantment and frustration with Singapore and our system, coupled with a sense of disenfranchisement.
So, why should we be concerned about retirees leaving Singapore? Is that not just one less elderly person for the rest of us to care for and, hence, something to cheer about?
That is precisely the sort of misconception that needs to be corrected.
In the first place, the elderly can still be productive members of society. They may either continue working (provided employer mindsets, among other things, are changed) or otherwise do volunteer work.
A recent global survey by HSBC and the Oxford Institute of Ageing found that 71 per cent of those aged between 60 and 70 worldwide are still working. Furthermore, up to 25 per cent of the elderly in Singapore do volunteer work, and this rate can be expected to rise as Singapore matures — North American and European countries had higher participation rates, with Canada hitting 50 per cent.
The survey concluded that those in their 60s and 70s are "a tremendous asset to society, not generally a burden".
Furthermore, the elderly who leave are generally those we want to keep, just like the young Singaporeans who decide to work overseas and do not return. Older folk with disposable funds to invest can be as globally mobile as young professionals. They have assets we should aim to keep in Singapore, and useful skills, abilities and experience that younger workers can learn from.
We have many ongoing efforts to address elderly needs, in recognition of our ageing population. But these are primarily focused on the lower-income elderly, to ensure their financial and other needs are adequately met.
There does not, as yet, seem to have been similar attention on the aspirations of the higher-income elderly.
But we need to start thinking about the high-income elderly as well. What drives them to leave? What can help to keep them in Singapore?
It is not new for people to want to retire outside Singapore. Historically, typical reasons have included a better quality and slower pace of life, and a lower cost of living. In other words, it is about getting away from the stresses of living in a busy urban environment, which are unavoidable given our geographical circumstances.
But, as Singapore grows and changes, new reasons for leaving may surface, and it bears considering whether anything can be done about those new reasons.
A lot comes down to issues of the quality of life and roots. We have always focused on making Singapore a great place to work and make money.
But old people, especially those who have already made their money, are not interested in that. They want a place in which they can be comfortable, in terms of physical and mental space, convenience and facilities, such as medical care.
Announcements such as the expected 6.5 million future population make many Singaporeans anxious, and understandably so. Many older Singaporeans know they do not want to live out their golden years in such a crowded country; younger Singaporeans may wonder if we do, even at our age.
Family ties can also help to keep Singaporeans here. But let us not forget that Perth, a popular retirement destination for many Singaporeans, is only five hours away by air. And the Internet has also shrunk the world. So, one can leave Singapore and still maintain ties with family here.
The issue of overseas retirement is one aspect of ageing that has not received much attention to date, perhaps because it is not quite as urgent as helping the low-income elderly secure their financial futures.
But I believe it bears watching out for, otherwise we risk losing a significant group of Singaporeans who are rich in assets, skills and experience. That would be a great loss, when people are our only natural resource.
The writer is a Nominated Member of Parliament and corporate counsel, commenting in his personal capacity.
Keep elderly from flying S'pore coop
Society's focus should also include the higher-income, who have wider options
Wednesday • June 20, 2007
Siew Kum Hong
AS with most young people, I have never really thought much about growing old or retirement. But that has been on my mind lately, resulting from separate comments by two older acquaintances, both professionals who should be on the verge of comfortable retirement.
One felt Singapore was already too crowded for him. He believed it would be "impossible to retire gracefully", given the expected future population of 6.5 million. His children, who find Singapore too stifling, have already left or are planning to leave.
The other, who is single, said somewhat morbidly that he intended to retire and live in Malaysia after his mother dies. His feelings may be best described as disenchantment and frustration with Singapore and our system, coupled with a sense of disenfranchisement.
So, why should we be concerned about retirees leaving Singapore? Is that not just one less elderly person for the rest of us to care for and, hence, something to cheer about?
That is precisely the sort of misconception that needs to be corrected.
In the first place, the elderly can still be productive members of society. They may either continue working (provided employer mindsets, among other things, are changed) or otherwise do volunteer work.
A recent global survey by HSBC and the Oxford Institute of Ageing found that 71 per cent of those aged between 60 and 70 worldwide are still working. Furthermore, up to 25 per cent of the elderly in Singapore do volunteer work, and this rate can be expected to rise as Singapore matures — North American and European countries had higher participation rates, with Canada hitting 50 per cent.
The survey concluded that those in their 60s and 70s are "a tremendous asset to society, not generally a burden".
Furthermore, the elderly who leave are generally those we want to keep, just like the young Singaporeans who decide to work overseas and do not return. Older folk with disposable funds to invest can be as globally mobile as young professionals. They have assets we should aim to keep in Singapore, and useful skills, abilities and experience that younger workers can learn from.
We have many ongoing efforts to address elderly needs, in recognition of our ageing population. But these are primarily focused on the lower-income elderly, to ensure their financial and other needs are adequately met.
There does not, as yet, seem to have been similar attention on the aspirations of the higher-income elderly.
But we need to start thinking about the high-income elderly as well. What drives them to leave? What can help to keep them in Singapore?
It is not new for people to want to retire outside Singapore. Historically, typical reasons have included a better quality and slower pace of life, and a lower cost of living. In other words, it is about getting away from the stresses of living in a busy urban environment, which are unavoidable given our geographical circumstances.
But, as Singapore grows and changes, new reasons for leaving may surface, and it bears considering whether anything can be done about those new reasons.
A lot comes down to issues of the quality of life and roots. We have always focused on making Singapore a great place to work and make money.
But old people, especially those who have already made their money, are not interested in that. They want a place in which they can be comfortable, in terms of physical and mental space, convenience and facilities, such as medical care.
Announcements such as the expected 6.5 million future population make many Singaporeans anxious, and understandably so. Many older Singaporeans know they do not want to live out their golden years in such a crowded country; younger Singaporeans may wonder if we do, even at our age.
Family ties can also help to keep Singaporeans here. But let us not forget that Perth, a popular retirement destination for many Singaporeans, is only five hours away by air. And the Internet has also shrunk the world. So, one can leave Singapore and still maintain ties with family here.
The issue of overseas retirement is one aspect of ageing that has not received much attention to date, perhaps because it is not quite as urgent as helping the low-income elderly secure their financial futures.
But I believe it bears watching out for, otherwise we risk losing a significant group of Singaporeans who are rich in assets, skills and experience. That would be a great loss, when people are our only natural resource.
The writer is a Nominated Member of Parliament and corporate counsel, commenting in his personal capacity.
Thursday, 31 May 2007
The faculty of accountability
TODAY published this article yesterday. To me, UNSW's departure demonstrates the downside of the steadfast pursuit of foreign investments that we continually engage in. Here, it was students' dreams that were shattered -- in the case of MNCs, it is workers' livelihoods. The three local universities cannot uproot and leave, the way UNSW has.
The lesson then is that we need to develop a strong domestic commercial sector that can at least partially wean us off foreign investment. We are still quite a long way off -- just see the paucity of homegrown global brand names. Citing the usual suspects like Singapore Airlines (and I would really leave out Creative) simply proves my point.
On the same day, TODAY also published a letter from EDB that sought to clarify what happened. EDB cited confidentiality obligations as the reason for not disclosing the support package offered, and I suppose that's also why it could not disclose the extent of losses (since the losses are due to the support package).
But then, why is that UNSW could cite its loss of A$17.5 (S$22) million? Also, The Financial Times has reported the figure of S$80 million as EDB's loss. If that is correct, then this information has entered the public domain and is, as a matter of law, no longer confidential. If it is not correct, then the information remains confidential, but EDB is entitled to deny that the figure is correct -- something that EDB has not done at all.
So I don't really see EDB's letter as being sufficient to address the calls for true accountability.
Note: I'm told that there was a factual error, in that MOE was not involved in the negotiations to bring UNSW to Singapore. I had stated that, based on previous news reports I had read. TODAY will run a correction tomorrow. I stand corrected and would like to apologise to MOE for any discomfort or embarrassment from this error. Having said that, I still believe that MOE has some degree of responsibility to account to the public for what had happened here -- I cannot imagine that MOE had no part to play in regulating UNSW's affairs. And you really cannot purport to regulate without taking responsibility when things go wrong.
The faculty of accountability
In the Singapore model, mitigating the risks when things go wrong is crucial
Wednesday • May 30, 2007
Siew Kum Hong
Anger, disbelief, fear, shock and tears. Those were just some of the reactions to the University of New South Wales (UNSW) Asia's announcement that it was giving up after just one term. Even as UNSW, the Economic Development Board (EDB), the Ministry of Education (MOE) and other educational institutions (including the three local universities) continue to try to help UNSW students deal with the aftermath, there are other issues that merit debate on a more macro level.
The first concerns the accountability of government agencies. The MOE had reportedly played an important role in attracting UNSW to Singapore in the first place. Furthermore, all private schools must register with the MOE. Yet, when students and parents wanted to meet with the latter after UNSW's decision, the MOE's response was that UNSW had ultimate responsibility.
As for the EDB, it had sealed the deal with UNSW and had invested heavily in the project. Yet, it has declined to reveal the losses resulting from UNSW's pullout. While disclosing the figures could affect the EDB's bargaining position in future negotiations with other universities, the fact remains that this is taxpayers' money. The Financial Times has reported the amount to be as high as $80 million.
The EDB has also not provided information on how the deal was structured. What sort of guarantees and commitments were extracted from UNSW? How could UNSW simply quit after just one term, when construction work on the new campus was already underway, apparently without having to pay compensation?
Did we give away too much to lure UNSW here?
The onus is on the EDB to explain what had happened and give an indication of our losses, while not compromising its ability to negotiate future deals. Its continued silence does not sit well with Singaporeans, particularly in light of the Public Accounts Committee's recent findings of significant lapses in the EDB's internal controls and governance.
Singaporeans expect greater accountability from ministers and civil servants, given the recent public service pay hike. The handling of this case may not have met the enhanced standards expected by the public.
A more fundamental question concerns the Singapore model, which relies heavily on foreign investments to drive the economy. UNSW's departure demonstrates the risks inherent in playing this game, especially in an increasingly globalised world where competitors are everywhere and funds come and go easily.
Investors are understandably fickle, coming to seek returns and leaving if there are none. As with UNSW and other multinational corporations, when they pull out, Singaporeans have to pick up the pieces, whether they be lost jobs, missed opportunities or dashed dreams.
This could come without warning, such as when there is a management change and hardnosed businessmen such as UNSW vice-chancellor Professor Fred Hilmer disagree with the previous decisions made.
So long as we persist with this economic model, the risk will remain. I am not saying we should abandon this model — it has served us well in the past, and it could continue to work for the future.
But we have to be aware of the inherent risks, make sure our eyes are open to what could happen if things go wrong, and do our best to mitigate the risks. Just as foreign investments have a multiplier effect on the economy, the negative repercussions of capital outflows will similarly be amplified.
And that brings us back to the EDB's role in attracting investments. Yes, capital should be able to flow in and out of Singapore freely, and we cannot stop an investor from leaving. But surely it is not too much to ask that where public funds are spent to entice foreign investments, we also extract some assurances and commitments to stay in Singapore. This not only minimises the wastage of taxpayers' money, but also mitigates the risk of lives being disrupted by premature departures.
Ultimately, our model of foreign investments requires us to keep foreign investors happy, to ensure that the business case presented is realistic and justifiable, and to ensure a long-term binding commitment. But, at the same time, we must not lose sight of the need to grow indigenous players who can compete internationally while retaining local roots. Otherwise, we will always remain hostage to the whims of foreign investors.
The writer is a Nominated Member of Parliament and a corporate counsel, commenting in his personal capacity.
The lesson then is that we need to develop a strong domestic commercial sector that can at least partially wean us off foreign investment. We are still quite a long way off -- just see the paucity of homegrown global brand names. Citing the usual suspects like Singapore Airlines (and I would really leave out Creative) simply proves my point.
On the same day, TODAY also published a letter from EDB that sought to clarify what happened. EDB cited confidentiality obligations as the reason for not disclosing the support package offered, and I suppose that's also why it could not disclose the extent of losses (since the losses are due to the support package).
But then, why is that UNSW could cite its loss of A$17.5 (S$22) million? Also, The Financial Times has reported the figure of S$80 million as EDB's loss. If that is correct, then this information has entered the public domain and is, as a matter of law, no longer confidential. If it is not correct, then the information remains confidential, but EDB is entitled to deny that the figure is correct -- something that EDB has not done at all.
So I don't really see EDB's letter as being sufficient to address the calls for true accountability.
Note: I'm told that there was a factual error, in that MOE was not involved in the negotiations to bring UNSW to Singapore. I had stated that, based on previous news reports I had read. TODAY will run a correction tomorrow. I stand corrected and would like to apologise to MOE for any discomfort or embarrassment from this error. Having said that, I still believe that MOE has some degree of responsibility to account to the public for what had happened here -- I cannot imagine that MOE had no part to play in regulating UNSW's affairs. And you really cannot purport to regulate without taking responsibility when things go wrong.
The faculty of accountability
In the Singapore model, mitigating the risks when things go wrong is crucial
Wednesday • May 30, 2007
Siew Kum Hong
Anger, disbelief, fear, shock and tears. Those were just some of the reactions to the University of New South Wales (UNSW) Asia's announcement that it was giving up after just one term. Even as UNSW, the Economic Development Board (EDB), the Ministry of Education (MOE) and other educational institutions (including the three local universities) continue to try to help UNSW students deal with the aftermath, there are other issues that merit debate on a more macro level.
The first concerns the accountability of government agencies. The MOE had reportedly played an important role in attracting UNSW to Singapore in the first place. Furthermore, all private schools must register with the MOE. Yet, when students and parents wanted to meet with the latter after UNSW's decision, the MOE's response was that UNSW had ultimate responsibility.
As for the EDB, it had sealed the deal with UNSW and had invested heavily in the project. Yet, it has declined to reveal the losses resulting from UNSW's pullout. While disclosing the figures could affect the EDB's bargaining position in future negotiations with other universities, the fact remains that this is taxpayers' money. The Financial Times has reported the amount to be as high as $80 million.
The EDB has also not provided information on how the deal was structured. What sort of guarantees and commitments were extracted from UNSW? How could UNSW simply quit after just one term, when construction work on the new campus was already underway, apparently without having to pay compensation?
Did we give away too much to lure UNSW here?
The onus is on the EDB to explain what had happened and give an indication of our losses, while not compromising its ability to negotiate future deals. Its continued silence does not sit well with Singaporeans, particularly in light of the Public Accounts Committee's recent findings of significant lapses in the EDB's internal controls and governance.
Singaporeans expect greater accountability from ministers and civil servants, given the recent public service pay hike. The handling of this case may not have met the enhanced standards expected by the public.
A more fundamental question concerns the Singapore model, which relies heavily on foreign investments to drive the economy. UNSW's departure demonstrates the risks inherent in playing this game, especially in an increasingly globalised world where competitors are everywhere and funds come and go easily.
Investors are understandably fickle, coming to seek returns and leaving if there are none. As with UNSW and other multinational corporations, when they pull out, Singaporeans have to pick up the pieces, whether they be lost jobs, missed opportunities or dashed dreams.
This could come without warning, such as when there is a management change and hardnosed businessmen such as UNSW vice-chancellor Professor Fred Hilmer disagree with the previous decisions made.
So long as we persist with this economic model, the risk will remain. I am not saying we should abandon this model — it has served us well in the past, and it could continue to work for the future.
But we have to be aware of the inherent risks, make sure our eyes are open to what could happen if things go wrong, and do our best to mitigate the risks. Just as foreign investments have a multiplier effect on the economy, the negative repercussions of capital outflows will similarly be amplified.
And that brings us back to the EDB's role in attracting investments. Yes, capital should be able to flow in and out of Singapore freely, and we cannot stop an investor from leaving. But surely it is not too much to ask that where public funds are spent to entice foreign investments, we also extract some assurances and commitments to stay in Singapore. This not only minimises the wastage of taxpayers' money, but also mitigates the risk of lives being disrupted by premature departures.
Ultimately, our model of foreign investments requires us to keep foreign investors happy, to ensure that the business case presented is realistic and justifiable, and to ensure a long-term binding commitment. But, at the same time, we must not lose sight of the need to grow indigenous players who can compete internationally while retaining local roots. Otherwise, we will always remain hostage to the whims of foreign investors.
The writer is a Nominated Member of Parliament and a corporate counsel, commenting in his personal capacity.
Saturday, 19 May 2007
Singapore Day and PMO OSU revisited
I had previously blogged about the Prime Minister's Office letter to TODAY about my piece on Singapore Day, and what I felt was a misrepresentation in that letter about what I had written. Yesterday's edition of TODAY ran a response from me to point out that mistake in PMO's letter, as follows:
I had initially been inclined to just let it be. But what got me pretty annoyed was the response from PMO to the e-mail that had been sent to them. The e-mail was from fellow TODAY writer Adrian Tan, who basically pointed out this pretty fundamental -- and obvious -- error and questioned why this error had been made. I had replied over that e-mail, asking PMO what their response was or whether they were going to respond at all.
Adrian replied to my e-mail (somewhat aggressively), ending with this paragraph:
PMO finally responded, one full week after Adrian's initial e-mail and three days after my e-mail. Their response is reproduced below in full.
I thought that there were many things lacking about this response. Firstly, it was sent only to myself -- it omitted Adrian and other cc addressees (TODAY folks), which I thought was a little impolite. The tone of the message was also pretty arrogant and high-handed.
Second, it was unsigned, with the sender unnamed. I'm told that the Overseas Singapore Unit is a 3-person unit, so that is pretty much an exercise in futility.
Third, Adrian was not stating a "personal view" -- he was pointing out an error. Was it too much for them to acknowledge whether there was in fact an error, and if not to explain why they had stated what they did?
Finally, the suggestion seems to be that the OSU will engage Singaporeans if and only if there are specific ideas being offered, and in no other circumstances. Is that really an appropriate position for a government agency to adopt? Whatever happened to taking in feedback? Is the only feedback that is valid and which the OSU will deign to respond to, feedback to help the OSU do its job?
All of these things are really not quite acceptable and not becoming, especially for a unit of the PMO, which really sets the tone for the entire civil service. So it really did raise my ire a bit. I had been inclined to simply blog about the mistake, because I have no wish to embarrass anyone publicly. But if that was going to be PMO's attitude, then I decided to write in to set the record straight in TODAY, who agreed to publish a response.
This whole episode has been more than a little disappointing. I didn't expect any bouquets, but to be misrepresented was uncalled-for. And I am sure any reasonable person would find the response from PMO simply unsatisfactory. This is not an ego trip from an NMP who has inflated expectations and perceptions of the importance and power of this appointment (trust me, I very much swing towards the other extreme), but simply an expression of annoyance, disbelief and and above all disappointment from a citizen.
"I refer to the letter "More than just a taste of home" by Mr Roy Quek of the Overseas Singapore Unit of the Prime Minister's Office (May 9), responding to my commentary "Not a recipe to win hearts" (May 4).
Mr Quek asserted that "Mr Siew's commentary is built around his mistaken premise that Singapore Day was organised to woo overseas Singaporeans back". There was no such mistake or premise on my part.
My commentary explicitly stated my personal belief that Singapore Day "served to refresh connections with overseas Singaporeans, to remind and update them about Singapore". This would have been clear and unmistakable to any reader."
I had initially been inclined to just let it be. But what got me pretty annoyed was the response from PMO to the e-mail that had been sent to them. The e-mail was from fellow TODAY writer Adrian Tan, who basically pointed out this pretty fundamental -- and obvious -- error and questioned why this error had been made. I had replied over that e-mail, asking PMO what their response was or whether they were going to respond at all.
Adrian replied to my e-mail (somewhat aggressively), ending with this paragraph:
"Am I correct, PMO that misrepresenting (whether negligently, or wilfully) in public the views on an MP (even an NMP) is a serious matter? Or am I wrong and that it's OK for the civil service to misrepresent publicly theviews of NMPs?"
PMO finally responded, one full week after Adrian's initial e-mail and three days after my e-mail. Their response is reproduced below in full.
"Dear Mr Siew,
The Overseas Singaporean Unit (OSU) does not see a need to respond to Mr Adrian Tan's comments as Mr Tan was sharing a personal view, which we have duly noted.
We will be happy to engage and discuss with Mr Tan if he has specific ideas and proposals on how we can better engage and connect with our Overseas Singaporeans, including suggestions on how we can improve on Singapore Day and other outreach initiatives.
Thank you."
I thought that there were many things lacking about this response. Firstly, it was sent only to myself -- it omitted Adrian and other cc addressees (TODAY folks), which I thought was a little impolite. The tone of the message was also pretty arrogant and high-handed.
Second, it was unsigned, with the sender unnamed. I'm told that the Overseas Singapore Unit is a 3-person unit, so that is pretty much an exercise in futility.
Third, Adrian was not stating a "personal view" -- he was pointing out an error. Was it too much for them to acknowledge whether there was in fact an error, and if not to explain why they had stated what they did?
Finally, the suggestion seems to be that the OSU will engage Singaporeans if and only if there are specific ideas being offered, and in no other circumstances. Is that really an appropriate position for a government agency to adopt? Whatever happened to taking in feedback? Is the only feedback that is valid and which the OSU will deign to respond to, feedback to help the OSU do its job?
All of these things are really not quite acceptable and not becoming, especially for a unit of the PMO, which really sets the tone for the entire civil service. So it really did raise my ire a bit. I had been inclined to simply blog about the mistake, because I have no wish to embarrass anyone publicly. But if that was going to be PMO's attitude, then I decided to write in to set the record straight in TODAY, who agreed to publish a response.
This whole episode has been more than a little disappointing. I didn't expect any bouquets, but to be misrepresented was uncalled-for. And I am sure any reasonable person would find the response from PMO simply unsatisfactory. This is not an ego trip from an NMP who has inflated expectations and perceptions of the importance and power of this appointment (trust me, I very much swing towards the other extreme), but simply an expression of annoyance, disbelief and and above all disappointment from a citizen.
Sunday, 13 May 2007
PMO response on Singapore Day, and Straits Times interview on homosexuality on 11 May 2007
I was out of town for much of this week, and was ill over the weekend (unfortunately, still am). So I've not been blogging or replying e-mails.
Regarding Singapore Day, there was a response by the Overseas Singapore Unit of the Prime Minister's Office in TODAY on 9 May 2007. There was a line in there which said:
Someone has e-mailed PMO to point that my piece included this line:
PMO has still not responded to that e-mail. I am keenly curious as to what they will respond with.
And I'd like to thank all of you who have posted or e-mailed supportive comments on the Yvonne Lee and homosexuality issue. The Straits Times ran a piece on Friday, basically a Q&A with 3 lawyers: Ms Indranee Rajah, Mr Lim Biow Chuan, and myself. I have reproduced below the published Q&A with me (yes, they asked me to look at the final edited version, so a big-up to the journalist for that!).
MR SIEW KUM HONG, 32, senior counsel for CA, an IT management software company. He is single and has been a Nominated Member of Parliament since January.
Your response to MM Lee’s comments?
My first thought was that his view was premised on pragmatism, not principle. It might result in what I believe to be the right conclusion (ie. decriminalisation of gay sex), but I do not agree with the reasoning process. In the end, it rests entirely on homosexuality being genetic but if there is subsequently any evidence that homosexuality is not genetic, then does it mean we should change positions again?
My own belief is that homosexual sex should be decriminalised regardless of whether homosexuality is genetic. It is fundamental to respecting people’s dignity and their freedom to lead their private lives as they decide to the extent it does not harm others, regardless of why they would want to lead their lives that way.
What do you think of the current situation, where homosexual sex is banned but is not proactively enforced?
Having a provision on the books that the Government has explicitly stated it will not proactively enforce, risks bringing the law into disrepute. And here’s another question – what if a homosexual is jilted and makes a complaint against his former partner? Should the police take enforcement action then? But should enforcement be based solely on whether a complaint is made? If so, is that a rational and justifiable basis for deciding whether to enforce?
On what basis should laws be made? Should they reflect values and morality? What about pragmatism?
I do not think that laws should reflect values and morality per se. Instead, I believe that laws should deter and prevent harm to people. And if that coincides with morality, then great.
But they are conceptually separate and distinct concepts, and we need to bear that in mind. There is a great danger when laws are used to enforce values and morality, because they do change. Women previously could not vote, and this was enforced by law. Obviously, values and morality have changed since those times, and I think rightly so.They are also not universal, and so could potentially oppress those who do not share such values and morality.
How do we advance the debate on decriminalising homosexual sex, beyond the fixed standpoints that have been presented?
I’m not sure if you can. The starting points are so fundamentally different that they are essentially arguing at cross-purposes. How do you convince, through argument, a Christian who is convinced that homosexuality is evil and immoral, a sin that needs to be outlawed? I don’t think you can.
But policy and law-makers have a different responsibility. I would hope and expect policy- and law-makers to acknowledge that their own values and moral beliefs are personal to them, and that policy- and law-making requires them to adopt more objective approaches.
Some will and have argued that the approach embodied in the Wolfenden Report (a 1960s document that sets the basis for the decriminalisation of homosexual sex in the United Kingdom) itself represents a value statement about the importance of personal liberty. But I would argue that that is a universal value, and is irrelevant.
The question is the extent to which personal liberty should be limited by the law, and so it falls on those who argue for criminalising homosexuality to demonstrate convincingly that private consensual homosexual sex results in external harm that merits it being criminalised.
There has always been a sense that societal norms here should evolve at the pace of the most conservative members of society. Do you agree? What sort of pace should society proceed at in terms of discussing this issue?
Actually, that’s not the case. I think Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong has previously stated that we should not move at the fastest (most liberal) or the slowest (most conservative), but with the mass in the middle. So far, the Government has identified the mass in the middle to be against the decriminalisation of homosexual sex.
But should that be the sole consideration? Surely the moral sensibilities of the mass in the middle should be balanced against the implications of the continued criminalisation of homosexual sex: the intolerant message sent by society, the lack of dignity or respect shown to a segment of our society (estimated at maybe 4 to 6 per cent), the inexorable exodus of homosexual Singaporeans overseas never to return, and the unquantifiable number of foreign talent who are homosexual and so simply decline to come to work in Singapore.
Law-making is a balancing act, to balance the different interests at play. I am not convinced that the continued criminalisation of homosexual sex strikes a balance that is most beneficial to Singapore and Singaporeans.
Regarding Singapore Day, there was a response by the Overseas Singapore Unit of the Prime Minister's Office in TODAY on 9 May 2007. There was a line in there which said:
"Mr Siew's commentary is built around his mistaken premise that Singapore Day was organised to woo overseas Singaporeans back."
Someone has e-mailed PMO to point that my piece included this line:
"I prefer to take the Government at face value and think that the event served to refresh connections with overseas Singaporeans, to remind and update them about Singapore."
PMO has still not responded to that e-mail. I am keenly curious as to what they will respond with.
And I'd like to thank all of you who have posted or e-mailed supportive comments on the Yvonne Lee and homosexuality issue. The Straits Times ran a piece on Friday, basically a Q&A with 3 lawyers: Ms Indranee Rajah, Mr Lim Biow Chuan, and myself. I have reproduced below the published Q&A with me (yes, they asked me to look at the final edited version, so a big-up to the journalist for that!).
MR SIEW KUM HONG, 32, senior counsel for CA, an IT management software company. He is single and has been a Nominated Member of Parliament since January.
Your response to MM Lee’s comments?
My first thought was that his view was premised on pragmatism, not principle. It might result in what I believe to be the right conclusion (ie. decriminalisation of gay sex), but I do not agree with the reasoning process. In the end, it rests entirely on homosexuality being genetic but if there is subsequently any evidence that homosexuality is not genetic, then does it mean we should change positions again?
My own belief is that homosexual sex should be decriminalised regardless of whether homosexuality is genetic. It is fundamental to respecting people’s dignity and their freedom to lead their private lives as they decide to the extent it does not harm others, regardless of why they would want to lead their lives that way.
What do you think of the current situation, where homosexual sex is banned but is not proactively enforced?
Having a provision on the books that the Government has explicitly stated it will not proactively enforce, risks bringing the law into disrepute. And here’s another question – what if a homosexual is jilted and makes a complaint against his former partner? Should the police take enforcement action then? But should enforcement be based solely on whether a complaint is made? If so, is that a rational and justifiable basis for deciding whether to enforce?
On what basis should laws be made? Should they reflect values and morality? What about pragmatism?
I do not think that laws should reflect values and morality per se. Instead, I believe that laws should deter and prevent harm to people. And if that coincides with morality, then great.
But they are conceptually separate and distinct concepts, and we need to bear that in mind. There is a great danger when laws are used to enforce values and morality, because they do change. Women previously could not vote, and this was enforced by law. Obviously, values and morality have changed since those times, and I think rightly so.They are also not universal, and so could potentially oppress those who do not share such values and morality.
How do we advance the debate on decriminalising homosexual sex, beyond the fixed standpoints that have been presented?
I’m not sure if you can. The starting points are so fundamentally different that they are essentially arguing at cross-purposes. How do you convince, through argument, a Christian who is convinced that homosexuality is evil and immoral, a sin that needs to be outlawed? I don’t think you can.
But policy and law-makers have a different responsibility. I would hope and expect policy- and law-makers to acknowledge that their own values and moral beliefs are personal to them, and that policy- and law-making requires them to adopt more objective approaches.
Some will and have argued that the approach embodied in the Wolfenden Report (a 1960s document that sets the basis for the decriminalisation of homosexual sex in the United Kingdom) itself represents a value statement about the importance of personal liberty. But I would argue that that is a universal value, and is irrelevant.
The question is the extent to which personal liberty should be limited by the law, and so it falls on those who argue for criminalising homosexuality to demonstrate convincingly that private consensual homosexual sex results in external harm that merits it being criminalised.
There has always been a sense that societal norms here should evolve at the pace of the most conservative members of society. Do you agree? What sort of pace should society proceed at in terms of discussing this issue?
Actually, that’s not the case. I think Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong has previously stated that we should not move at the fastest (most liberal) or the slowest (most conservative), but with the mass in the middle. So far, the Government has identified the mass in the middle to be against the decriminalisation of homosexual sex.
But should that be the sole consideration? Surely the moral sensibilities of the mass in the middle should be balanced against the implications of the continued criminalisation of homosexual sex: the intolerant message sent by society, the lack of dignity or respect shown to a segment of our society (estimated at maybe 4 to 6 per cent), the inexorable exodus of homosexual Singaporeans overseas never to return, and the unquantifiable number of foreign talent who are homosexual and so simply decline to come to work in Singapore.
Law-making is a balancing act, to balance the different interests at play. I am not convinced that the continued criminalisation of homosexual sex strikes a balance that is most beneficial to Singapore and Singaporeans.
Sunday, 6 May 2007
Not a recipe to win hearts over
This was published in yesterday's (Friday's) edition of TODAY. It was a strange coincidence that I ended up at Singapore Day. It was warm and crowded -- not just packed, but crazy crowded. Long, snaking lines for a small serving of food. I met someone who queued for 2 hours for a small plate of nasi lemak (which did look really good, to be honest).
To be honest, the food wasn't as good as the mass media made it out to be. But I don't blame the hawkers at all. Firstly, the volumes involved were massive -- I think the estimated turn-out was 5000 to 7000 people. Secondly, it seems that many ingredients requested for were not available. Worse, the hawkers did not bring their own cooking implements, and had to make do with whatever was available (which obviously was not everything they wanted).
Anyway. Turns out I wasn't the only MP there. Baey Yam Keng was also there, and he blogged about the event on the P65 blog.
Not a recipe to win hearts over
More intrinsic appeal needed to woo overseas locals back
Friday • May 4, 2007
Siew Kum Hong
I WENT to Singapore Day in New York a couple of weeks back. I was there for work, was with a Singaporean friend living in the city who wanted to go, and eventually found myself in Central Park on a bright, sunny Saturday.
The event was undoubtedly a success. The hawkers were a big hit, with some queues taking up to two hours. Still, some Singaporeans I spoke to had reservations, even as they enjoyed the food.
Some queried the registration requirement and amount of information requested, and wondered if the Government is using the event as an excuse to gather data on overseas Singaporeans. Others found the tone of the event — which included National Day songs belted out by homegrown entertainers — off-putting, as it reminded them why they had left Singapore in the first place.
While I applaud the idea of Singapore Day, I think these views are nevertheless valuable and interesting. There was a certain fuzziness around what the event sought to do, but I doubt it was a sinister effort to track overseas Singaporeans, a theory I find borders on paranoia.
Was it a disguised attempt at getting Singaporeans to come home? If so, it needs to be more sophisticated in its approach. The performance of the National Day songs came across as being over-the-top and contrived.
A Singaporean who liked the idea of re-connecting with her country was turned off by the hardsell and rolled her eyes at the brochures on integrating returning Singaporeans' kids into our education system. I also met more than one gay Singaporean, who, regardless of however much he or she enjoyed the event, were all convinced that they would never return home.
I prefer to take the Government at face value and think that the event served to refresh connections with overseas Singaporeans, to remind and update them about Singapore.
However, I also noticed certain unflattering aspects. There were no activities for kids. The American husband of another Singaporean noted the irony of flying in Singaporean bands that sounded exactly like many other bands in New York. (The highlight for me was the getai skit from Royston Tan's upcoming film 881.) There was a lack of recycling bins despite the number of Yeo's-sponsored canned drinks being guzzled down.
And, as pointed out by another Singaporean, it was a "typically Singaporean" event, with a singular emphasis on food.
I was bothered by this display of food as the overarching — and apparently sole — factor that unifies Singaporeans. (And I am at least as greedy as the next food-loving Singaporean.) The identification of eatables as being at the core of "Singaporeanness" betrays a certain pragmatic consumerism and materialism. If being Singaporean is so intimately tied to something extrinsic, what will happen when it is gone?
Singapore Day hinted at the troubling answer. The crowds thinned considerably as the stalls ran out of food. Few stayed for the entertainment flown in from home. Fewer paid any attention to the displays and booths touting the developments at home and that of overseas Singaporeans. In fact, there was a lack of interest in anything other than the food — and when the food was gone, there was little interest in anything at the event at all.
Food can be replicated, even if it is difficult to do so authentically. New York-based movie director and foodie Colin Goh said all the local fare at Singapore Day was available in New York except for the chwee kueh. That was the first item to run out.
The sad truth is that while food is the easiest and surest way to tie Singaporeans' minds to Singapore, it is a tie that does not bind tightly, if at all. We would do well to develop and emphasise other ties that are far more intangible and emotional — and hence tighter and less easily displaced and replaced.
This will require greater subtlety, creativity and resources. Perhaps Singapore could be "recreated" through miniature replicas of familiar landmarks. Instead of including rubber bands in goodie bags with instructions on how to play "zero point", a zero-point competition could be held for children and adults. Another suggestion I heard was to have people register for a Friendster-type social networking service, to tease out connections between people.
The aim of events such as Singapore Day should be to engage people's hearts and minds, not just their stomachs. Otherwise, overseas Singaporeans may flock to future Singapore Days, but the events will not deepen or strengthen their links with Singapore.
The writer is a Nominated Member of Parliament and corporate counsel, commenting in his personal capacity.
To be honest, the food wasn't as good as the mass media made it out to be. But I don't blame the hawkers at all. Firstly, the volumes involved were massive -- I think the estimated turn-out was 5000 to 7000 people. Secondly, it seems that many ingredients requested for were not available. Worse, the hawkers did not bring their own cooking implements, and had to make do with whatever was available (which obviously was not everything they wanted).
Anyway. Turns out I wasn't the only MP there. Baey Yam Keng was also there, and he blogged about the event on the P65 blog.
Not a recipe to win hearts over
More intrinsic appeal needed to woo overseas locals back
Friday • May 4, 2007
Siew Kum Hong
I WENT to Singapore Day in New York a couple of weeks back. I was there for work, was with a Singaporean friend living in the city who wanted to go, and eventually found myself in Central Park on a bright, sunny Saturday.
The event was undoubtedly a success. The hawkers were a big hit, with some queues taking up to two hours. Still, some Singaporeans I spoke to had reservations, even as they enjoyed the food.
Some queried the registration requirement and amount of information requested, and wondered if the Government is using the event as an excuse to gather data on overseas Singaporeans. Others found the tone of the event — which included National Day songs belted out by homegrown entertainers — off-putting, as it reminded them why they had left Singapore in the first place.
While I applaud the idea of Singapore Day, I think these views are nevertheless valuable and interesting. There was a certain fuzziness around what the event sought to do, but I doubt it was a sinister effort to track overseas Singaporeans, a theory I find borders on paranoia.
Was it a disguised attempt at getting Singaporeans to come home? If so, it needs to be more sophisticated in its approach. The performance of the National Day songs came across as being over-the-top and contrived.
A Singaporean who liked the idea of re-connecting with her country was turned off by the hardsell and rolled her eyes at the brochures on integrating returning Singaporeans' kids into our education system. I also met more than one gay Singaporean, who, regardless of however much he or she enjoyed the event, were all convinced that they would never return home.
I prefer to take the Government at face value and think that the event served to refresh connections with overseas Singaporeans, to remind and update them about Singapore.
However, I also noticed certain unflattering aspects. There were no activities for kids. The American husband of another Singaporean noted the irony of flying in Singaporean bands that sounded exactly like many other bands in New York. (The highlight for me was the getai skit from Royston Tan's upcoming film 881.) There was a lack of recycling bins despite the number of Yeo's-sponsored canned drinks being guzzled down.
And, as pointed out by another Singaporean, it was a "typically Singaporean" event, with a singular emphasis on food.
I was bothered by this display of food as the overarching — and apparently sole — factor that unifies Singaporeans. (And I am at least as greedy as the next food-loving Singaporean.) The identification of eatables as being at the core of "Singaporeanness" betrays a certain pragmatic consumerism and materialism. If being Singaporean is so intimately tied to something extrinsic, what will happen when it is gone?
Singapore Day hinted at the troubling answer. The crowds thinned considerably as the stalls ran out of food. Few stayed for the entertainment flown in from home. Fewer paid any attention to the displays and booths touting the developments at home and that of overseas Singaporeans. In fact, there was a lack of interest in anything other than the food — and when the food was gone, there was little interest in anything at the event at all.
Food can be replicated, even if it is difficult to do so authentically. New York-based movie director and foodie Colin Goh said all the local fare at Singapore Day was available in New York except for the chwee kueh. That was the first item to run out.
The sad truth is that while food is the easiest and surest way to tie Singaporeans' minds to Singapore, it is a tie that does not bind tightly, if at all. We would do well to develop and emphasise other ties that are far more intangible and emotional — and hence tighter and less easily displaced and replaced.
This will require greater subtlety, creativity and resources. Perhaps Singapore could be "recreated" through miniature replicas of familiar landmarks. Instead of including rubber bands in goodie bags with instructions on how to play "zero point", a zero-point competition could be held for children and adults. Another suggestion I heard was to have people register for a Friendster-type social networking service, to tease out connections between people.
The aim of events such as Singapore Day should be to engage people's hearts and minds, not just their stomachs. Otherwise, overseas Singaporeans may flock to future Singapore Days, but the events will not deepen or strengthen their links with Singapore.
The writer is a Nominated Member of Parliament and corporate counsel, commenting in his personal capacity.
Thursday, 26 April 2007
Make it a fair game for all
This was published in TODAY on 17 April 2007. There was a response from StarHub on 23 April 2007. I would only say that:
Content exclusivity harms competition and hurts consumers
Tuesday • April 17, 2007
SIEW KUM HONG
THE Media Development Authority (MDA) recently announced its first triennial review of the media competition code. This is timely, given the significant changes in both the media and competition regulatory landscapes since the code was introduced in 2003.
SPH MediaWorks is no more. The MDA has implemented a licensing framework for Internet Protocol TV (IPTV) services. A new pay TV operator, M2B World, commenced operations last year, while SingTel will launch its IPTV service this year. Meanwhile, the Competition Act administered by the Competition Commission of Singapore has come into force.
In this light, the MDA's proposed changes are positive. They position the code for the upcoming battles in the pay TV market. More importantly, the MDA's regulatory approach will be updated, to become more flexible and more consistent with the approaches of the Competition Commission and of the Infocomm Development Authority (IDA) in regulating the telecommunications industry.
But there remain a couple of issues. Firstly, the MDA has proposed a new prohibition against "anti-competitive leveraging". This prevents a media service provider from relying upon a non-media affiliate's significant market power to unreasonably restrict media competition. This mirrors a similar provision in IDA's telecommunications competition code. But StarHub competes in both the media and telecommunications industries, and SingTel is a dominant licensee in telecommunications. Meanwhile, M1 has also announced plans for a pay TV service.
So, potential complainants may try to "forum shop" for a friendly regulator. Worse, a failed complainant before one regulator may try again before the other, hoping for a more sympathetic ear. The MDA and the IDA will therefore have to work closely, to avoid any anomalies in regulatory decisions.
A bigger issue concerns exclusive content agreements by pay TV operators. In 2003, the MDA sought the public's comments on whether such agreements were anti-competitive, since some content can be so essential that an operator can effectively foreclose competition by tying up such content exclusively. Possible critical genres identified by the MDA included English sports, English films and English education.
The MDA eventually concluded last year that "while certain content could be considered critical for the success of a pay TV service, exclusive carriage agreements per se do not substantially foreclose potential entrants' access to key content for the pay TV market in Singapore." In other words, the MDA thought that such exclusive arrangements did not, in and of themselves, preclude effective competition in the pay TV market.
At that time, the MDA was also conducting a tender exercise for a second pay TV licence, the incumbent being StarHub Cable Vision. There were no bidders. Observers then attributed the lack of interest to uncertainty over the MDA's position on exclusive agreements.
The MDA's decision has not deterred entrants, as can be seen by M2B World's service and SingTel's and M1's plans. But let's put that into context. M2B World is aiming for 10,000 subscribers in Singapore by 2007. With over a million resident households, that represents a penetration rate of below 1 per cent. If M2B World is viable, it is probably because it is also available in the United States, resulting in economies of scale not available to Singapore-only operators.
For SingTel, it was probably compelled to launch an IPTV service so that it can have a "triple play" offering of mobile, broadband and pay TV.
The same reasoning goes for M1. But it remains unclear whether their IPTV services will be viable, without the all-important rights to the English Premier League (EPL).
Last year, StarHub won a bidding war against SingTel and ESPN Star Sports for the Singapore rights for the next three EPL seasons. StarHub's bid was rumoured to exceed $150 million, or eight times what ESPN Star Sports paid for the preceding three seasons. The magnitude of the increase in fees suggests that StarHub may see EPL as critical to its pay TV service — which is exactly why such rights should not be exclusive.
The bidding war also worried many consumers, who fear that StarHub will charge more for EPL matches to recoup its outlay. And therein lies the danger of exclusive agreements. When it is an all-or-nothing proposition, operators will bid high to secure critical content — with the increased costs being passed on to consumers. It is not surprising that during the public consultation, channel owners were unanimous in supporting the status quo.
At the end of the day, competition for its own sake is pointless. Competition is good only if it benefits consumers, normally through greater variety or lower price.
But in the case of pay TV, even as the MDA seeks to update the code, it has not addressed the very big elephant of exclusive content agreements in the middle of the room. I hope the MDA is right, and SingTel's and M1's IPTV services can be truly competitive.
The writer is a corporate counsel and a Nominated Member of Parliament commenting in his personal capacity. He co-authored a submission to the MDA for the public consultation exercise in 2003.
- Being the incumbent, they would say all that, wouldn't they?
- Singapore is supposed at the bleeding edge of regulatory issues, so I would not put too much emphasis on the fact that no other jurisdiction has adopted such an approach to exclusive content agreements.
- It would not be difficult to construct a mechanism whereby content owners receive part of the fees paid by sub-licensees to licensees, so that overall they still receive a fair price for their content.
- If EPL's choice is between granting a non-exclusive licence for Singapore at $100 million (less than the reported $150 million paid by StarHub for an exclusive licence) and bypassing the Singapore market entirely at zero dollars, which do you think EPL will choose? I think by definition, all rational beings will choose the former. The only possible argument in response is that EPL may decide to forego Singapore entirely, to deter other regulators from following in Singapore's footsteps. I don't know if that is a realistic threat.
- In any case, my main thrust is that MDA is trying to have its cake and eat it, by retaining exclusive content agreements while encouraging Pay-TV competition. I'm actually a little ambivalent on exclusivity per se, I just think it makes effective competition in the Singapore context really difficult.
Content exclusivity harms competition and hurts consumers
Tuesday • April 17, 2007
SIEW KUM HONG
THE Media Development Authority (MDA) recently announced its first triennial review of the media competition code. This is timely, given the significant changes in both the media and competition regulatory landscapes since the code was introduced in 2003.
SPH MediaWorks is no more. The MDA has implemented a licensing framework for Internet Protocol TV (IPTV) services. A new pay TV operator, M2B World, commenced operations last year, while SingTel will launch its IPTV service this year. Meanwhile, the Competition Act administered by the Competition Commission of Singapore has come into force.
In this light, the MDA's proposed changes are positive. They position the code for the upcoming battles in the pay TV market. More importantly, the MDA's regulatory approach will be updated, to become more flexible and more consistent with the approaches of the Competition Commission and of the Infocomm Development Authority (IDA) in regulating the telecommunications industry.
But there remain a couple of issues. Firstly, the MDA has proposed a new prohibition against "anti-competitive leveraging". This prevents a media service provider from relying upon a non-media affiliate's significant market power to unreasonably restrict media competition. This mirrors a similar provision in IDA's telecommunications competition code. But StarHub competes in both the media and telecommunications industries, and SingTel is a dominant licensee in telecommunications. Meanwhile, M1 has also announced plans for a pay TV service.
So, potential complainants may try to "forum shop" for a friendly regulator. Worse, a failed complainant before one regulator may try again before the other, hoping for a more sympathetic ear. The MDA and the IDA will therefore have to work closely, to avoid any anomalies in regulatory decisions.
A bigger issue concerns exclusive content agreements by pay TV operators. In 2003, the MDA sought the public's comments on whether such agreements were anti-competitive, since some content can be so essential that an operator can effectively foreclose competition by tying up such content exclusively. Possible critical genres identified by the MDA included English sports, English films and English education.
The MDA eventually concluded last year that "while certain content could be considered critical for the success of a pay TV service, exclusive carriage agreements per se do not substantially foreclose potential entrants' access to key content for the pay TV market in Singapore." In other words, the MDA thought that such exclusive arrangements did not, in and of themselves, preclude effective competition in the pay TV market.
At that time, the MDA was also conducting a tender exercise for a second pay TV licence, the incumbent being StarHub Cable Vision. There were no bidders. Observers then attributed the lack of interest to uncertainty over the MDA's position on exclusive agreements.
The MDA's decision has not deterred entrants, as can be seen by M2B World's service and SingTel's and M1's plans. But let's put that into context. M2B World is aiming for 10,000 subscribers in Singapore by 2007. With over a million resident households, that represents a penetration rate of below 1 per cent. If M2B World is viable, it is probably because it is also available in the United States, resulting in economies of scale not available to Singapore-only operators.
For SingTel, it was probably compelled to launch an IPTV service so that it can have a "triple play" offering of mobile, broadband and pay TV.
The same reasoning goes for M1. But it remains unclear whether their IPTV services will be viable, without the all-important rights to the English Premier League (EPL).
Last year, StarHub won a bidding war against SingTel and ESPN Star Sports for the Singapore rights for the next three EPL seasons. StarHub's bid was rumoured to exceed $150 million, or eight times what ESPN Star Sports paid for the preceding three seasons. The magnitude of the increase in fees suggests that StarHub may see EPL as critical to its pay TV service — which is exactly why such rights should not be exclusive.
The bidding war also worried many consumers, who fear that StarHub will charge more for EPL matches to recoup its outlay. And therein lies the danger of exclusive agreements. When it is an all-or-nothing proposition, operators will bid high to secure critical content — with the increased costs being passed on to consumers. It is not surprising that during the public consultation, channel owners were unanimous in supporting the status quo.
At the end of the day, competition for its own sake is pointless. Competition is good only if it benefits consumers, normally through greater variety or lower price.
But in the case of pay TV, even as the MDA seeks to update the code, it has not addressed the very big elephant of exclusive content agreements in the middle of the room. I hope the MDA is right, and SingTel's and M1's IPTV services can be truly competitive.
The writer is a corporate counsel and a Nominated Member of Parliament commenting in his personal capacity. He co-authored a submission to the MDA for the public consultation exercise in 2003.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)