Sunday, 31 July 2011

Lui Tuck Yew should think out of the PAP box



                           

Lui Tuck Yew should think out of the PAP box by looking at faces of change and possibility.

Transport Minister Lui Tuck Yew appears to be a PAP hero fighting WP’s nationalized public transport proposal at one hand and attacking NSP’s opening up bus services to more operators in the other end.

Whatever and however his fighting spirit is, he cannot run away from the mindset of the PAP and continues to position himself within the money box.

Lui’s assumptions on our public transport are a reflection of the PAP’s mindset and government standard operation procedures. He seems to base on the following assumptions to defend his transport policy.

More private bus operators

PAP position: Greater competition in public transport - including opening up bus services to small private operators - could hurt the interests of commuters in the long run. (Today 29 Jul)

Lui noted that the two public transport operators - SBS Transit and SMRT - run a mix of profitable and loss-making routes which they are obliged to do so under their universal service obligations. 

Indirectly, according to Lui, by opening up public transport system, he cannot demand private operators to provide services to the loss-making routes. And it will lead to control problems.  Obviously, the PAP wants to control the operators.  With so many operators, if allowed, some even operated by low cost ‘foreign talents’, it will be a situation that the PAP finds difficulties to control and manage. They prefer to control 2 big ones rather than many small ones.

Creating certain kinds of monopoly, providing them with profit incentive and then ultimately, controlling them is the business ‘normal’ of the PAP. This applies to media, banking, telecommunication, and other key industries.

PAP mindset: So, they are afraid of losing the control. No controlling power, the government cannot function as effective as it wants.


Nationalized Public Transport

PAP Position: Nationalized public transport system will lead to a welfare state and commuters could end up paying more.

The PAP is always against welfare state and their philosophy is to make the rich becomes richer.  If the wealth of the nation is not distributed to support the poor, of course, at the end of the day, with inflation, the poor will have to end up paying more.

Because of state ownership, Lui thinks public transport productivity will decline and more subsidies are needed to maintain the system.  Not to forget our public transport although semi-government owned has not achieved the highest productivity in the world.  There are productive public transport systems, like the Taipei metro, and their tax payers have not complained about it.

To be rich, there are gives and takes. The government is too well aware of the fact that without the low base of foreign workers, our businesses will not be able to make more money.  Hence, there is good reason to maintain an affordable public transport system.  This is also good for businesses.
 
You just can’t want a good and productive house but don’t feed the house well (又要马儿好,又要马儿不吃草). An affordable public transport system is key to productive workforce.

Lui also admits that ‘there is a certain amount of cross subsidy that is taking place from the profitable routes to the non-profitable routes.’ (Today 29 Jul)

Since the 2 public transport operators can do a CROSS SUBSIDY, as a nation, there is also a possibility that the government can do a cross subsidy from the rich to the poor. If the public transport operators can take care of the loss-making routes so do the Singapore government.  As a nation, they PAP should also take care of Singapore citizens by cross subsidy from the rich (profit-making routes) to the poor (loss-making routes).  This will enhance the harmony and cohesiveness of Singapore.

PAP mindset: So, the PAP is not willing to help the poor. They allow cross subsidy for public transport operators as the PAP can control them. But the government disallows cross subsidy (from rich to poor) as they cannot control the people (and voters).


The ‘change’ of lucrative thinking

PAP position: Loss-making routes are always loss-making regardless who is the operator.  There is no ‘change’ in thinking and their solution is to think within the (control) box.

Lui’s most ‘in the box’ thinking is his view of the "cherry-picking" of lucrative routes.   Because of the usual monopoly thinking, controlling and providing profit assurance, the PAP has pre-set the situation.

He has failed to realize that the problem of loss making routes can turn into profitable ones.   His assumption of loss could be a profit for others.  Just like HDB flats, private developers can still make money on state lands and not like HDB always complains about making losses.

Just an example, you can get a haircut for $5 from a Chinese barber in your HDB estates, but you need to pay $ 7 or $8 for a local barber. This is a bad example but it shows the possibility – from loss-making to profit-making for some people.

Has Lui heard of Islamic banking? The Muslim religion does not allow interest for loan but how come we see the Islamic banking is booming? How do banks make money under no interest principle?

PAP mindset: Sothe PAP needs to think out of the box – both money making and political controlling. Their old ways of money politics and mindset need a total change for the new political ‘normal’.


Change and possibility



Change: Who will ever think of the most beautiful foreign minister in the world is from an Islamic country – Pakistan?  Pakistan Foreign Minister Hina Rabbain Khar is only 34 years old, young and pretty.

Some on Twitter made broader comments about Ms. Khar’s looks. Seema Goswami, a columnist for Brunch, the Hindustan Times Sunday magazine, observed,  




Can we have a foreign minister like Ms Khar to 
help us think out of the box?


“I think the new foreign minister of Pak, Hina Rabbani Khar, is their weapon of mass distraction”

I wish one day Singapore will have such a weapon of mass distraction so Lui and other PAP ministers can look at a similar Ms Khar and think out of the box to solve the public issues in Singapore.

Possibility: Otherwise, if they prefer conservative way, they better seek the help of the tycoons how come they can make more money when the economy is bad as reported in the Straits Times 29 July below:  

SINGAPORE'S 40 richest people are worth about US$54.4 billion (S$65 billion) in all, a 19 per cent increase from last year despite faltering share markets and a fragile global economy.

Hi, Mr. Lui you have a choice, to look at the beautiful face or the money faces to think out of the box.

Many will look at the pretty face for stimulating ideas and solutions. Good luck, Mr. Lui. Or good luck Singapore where is our Ms Khar alike?


Friday, 29 July 2011

观其言 察其行 陈庆炎的小动作




全民总统之《观其言而察其行》陈庆炎的小动作

《观其言而察其行》是来自《论语》的一句话。意思是说选取人才的方法,不仅要听他说,更要观察他的行动。一个人是否是真的那么行,那么可靠,是否是主流媒体说的那样好,那就不得而知了。或许,从陈庆炎过去一个月来得一些小动作,可以观出一个所以然来?

陈庆炎由于树大招风,频频见报,上电视,自然,成了《观其言而察其行》的首选。我们当然也要注意其他的准总统候选人的动态,甚至政府,行动党的动态(尤其是大选后的要聆听民意,重视民情),他们也是《观其言而察其行》的目标。

谁是谁非1    大方?大气?

这是早报的报道:【双陈陈庆炎博士和陈钦亮,今午不约而同都到选举局呈交表格。职总英康前总裁陈钦亮今早1120分抵达选举局,呈交表格,并坚决表示,无论是二角战、三角战或多角战,他都会参加民选总统竞选。他在约1130分离开选举局,就在10分钟之后,前副总理陈庆炎博士也到选举局呈交表格。】

早报的原意是‘王不见王‘。这里最少出现两个版本,陈钦亮说,他交了申请书后,夫妇两人站在选举局门口,等待陈庆炎前来,因为他想和陈庆炎握手打招呼。 陈庆炎却在脸书上说,他不愿意跟陈钦亮争风头,因为,陈钦亮先到, 这是陈钦亮的时刻。

到底是谁大方,是谁小气?还是不想让人沾光?这就不得而知了。

谁是谁非2    事实? 诚意?

陈庆炎说,他在担任教育部长后,发现大学毕业女生的孩子有优先选择报读小学的规定后,决定向内阁建议,取消这项措施。有人怀疑,这个说法不正确,到底谁是谁非,一时也说不清楚。或许,拿出当年的内阁文件记录,可以一解这个疑问?

谁是谁非3    有效? 制衡?

早报报道说:【陈庆炎博士昨天也把今年5月新加坡大选后的政治改变,形容成一个三赢局面,其中人民更是大赢家。他说,执政的人民行动党获得人民的委托是赢家之一,反对党如工人党赢得议席并能借以建立政党信誉也是另一种进步,至于人民则能从更有效的政策辩论中获益,进一步改善生活。他解释说,这个新政治局面将由一个强有力的政党组成政府,但至少在国会内有个有效的反对党与其相抵,辩论政策,从不同角度提出另外方案。陈庆炎也同时强调,这纯粹是他的个人观点。】

作为物理,数学方面的专才,不知道陈庆炎是怎么算出681的国会,即使是9(包括非选区议员)比81的国会,就是有效反对党的国会。行动党在国会拥有32绝对优势,就可以否决总统的决定。行动党在国会拥有43绝对优势,就可以罢免总统,这个国会怎么可能有一个有效的能够扮演制衡的反对党。除非,反对党手中拥有一张人民托管的golden share

不然,有效两个字,还言之过早。

谁是谁非4    玄机?特意?

到底是交申请书重要,还是拿申请书重要。陈庆炎是夫妇一起拿申请书,一人单独交上申请书。陈钦亮是有人代拿申请书,但是,是夫妇两人一起前往递交申请书。陈清木也是夫唱妇随,一起交申请书。

陈庆炎个人单独提交申请书,有没有特别的意义?以他这么注重形象的人,为何不夫妇俩一起提交申请书。或许,我们真的太多心了。

他们三人的布局,一位拿了申请书表格,再开记者会,两位则是交了申请书表格,再开记者会,这这里是否有什么玄机?

谁是谁非5    作秀? 做事?

自从79 出席土生华人协会的集会后,陈庆炎的曝光率是准总统候选人中,最高最多的。他出席中华总商会的讲演,拉近与华族选民,华社的距离。他到新加坡管理大学,发表未来大学教育的讲演,拉近与年轻人的距离。

接着,他出席道教总会举行的种族与宗教和谐日暨答谢会,他在活动上接受媒体访问时说,像这类宗教联谊会和道总举行的种族和谐活动对拉近种族间的联系非常重要。他认为不同宗教团体能一起合作很难得,并希望往后会继续合作。

道教总会出的书,也包含推介国内的其他民族的宗教如马来信仰和回教。因此,他也借此拉近宗教人士。

他接着下来,将会出席一个印度商会的印度人讲座。

种种的安排,不是出席,就是讲演,主流媒体的配合,不难令人联想到这是他的选举造势活动。基本,陈庆炎已经完成了和我国四大种族,各种宗教的 联系。

谁是谁非6    第一?优先?

早报又一则报道:【新加坡是应该以国人为先,但眼中不可以只有新加坡人。已宣布将竞选总统的前副总理陈庆炎博士昨天在新加坡管理大学沈基文金融经济学研究所举办的公开讲座上演讲,提出这个观点时认为不管政府推行什么新政策,都应该把新加坡和新加坡人的利益放在第一位,但以新加坡人优先Singaporeans First)与只给新加坡人Singaporeans Only)是不同的概念。因为新加坡是个国际都会,如果关上门户,将是严重的错误。】

好多网民不认同他的诚意,或许,他根本就不需要网民的支持。但事过了不久,他却宴请一些知名博客共进午餐。把距离拉近。这有点让人觉得有点奇怪了?是不是又再作秀了?

继续观察

总统选举即将到来,越到最后关头,我们越要《观其言而察其行》。千万不要让一些事实而非的 报道,如惹兰勿杀足球比赛,三巴旺小孩事件所迷惑。
 
这回,我们要吸取5月大选的 教训,敢敢投票给一位能够保护储备,又能拉近,团结和鼓励人民的全民总统。

Thursday, 28 July 2011

Can the PAP move away from profit-maximisation model?

Can the PAP move away from profit-maximisation model? And learn something from Jing Shang.


When Singapore Management University (SMU) board of trustees chairman Ho Kwon Ping comments on the failure of business schools to convey the right ethical values to students, I wonder whether this can also apply to the PAP or not.  

He said: 'Business schools have not only failed to convey the ethical values which might have mitigated, if not prevented, the business excesses leading to the last global recession; but indeed, much of the fault for the excesses actually lay with business schools themselves.'

He, therefore, advocated a shift from the profit-maximisation model of business to a more balanced view of performance.

'There must be new, rigorously devised, defensible and quantitative measures of corporate performance which take into account the interests of all stakeholders.'
(The Straits Times, 25 July 2011)

This sounds familiar to Singapore Inc, a country manages like a company and the sole purpose seems to focus on profit maximisation only. 

Move away from profit-maximisation model

The Singapore government since independence has been engaging in profit-maximisation model. Not only the government and its agencies are doing businesses, even the suppliers of public goods like public transport and housing also focus on profit making.

I am not sure about Ho’s suggestion of ‘balanced view of performance’. Can we assume and extend it to include quality of life, a balanced and managed growth for the benefits of Singaporeans, or a protection of minimum life support for the poor?  Of course, Ho is talking about business and I should not put words on his mouth.

However, because of Singapore Inc, the PAP is running Singapore like a business.  What Ho’s calling for business schools to take a more critical view of themselves, in a keynote address at the 12th International Conference of the Society for Global Business and Economic Development has its significant reference to Singapore Inc as a business identity.

Education and ethics

He dismissed a trend among business schools to offer courses on ethics and corporate governance as superficial.

'Business schools should not see their role as just trying to mitigate their graduates' future ethical lapses by rolling out more courses which try to impart ethics or business sustainability.

'The problem is not an external one which ethics courses can solve. It goes to the heart of what we think the role of business is in society, and to whom are managers ultimately responsible.'
(The Straits Times, 25 July 2011)

Hence, when manages the Singapore Inc, the PAP should consider its role and responsibility in the society.  It used to do these in the early years for employment, affordable housing and transport. 

In the name of money, we are in debt to society

In searching of money and profit maximisation, we always come across news headlines like:

<Murdoch gives Singapore top marks for ministers' high pay> -- maximising pay for ministers?

<NTU's 2011 grad earns $20,000 a month> -- maximising starting pay for new graduates? 

<More seeking help for gambling problems: SOS>
-- maximising profit for a gambler?

<S'pore will spiral down if govt is weak> -- maximising power for maximising profit?


Who cause the social ills? Can we afford to slower down with a better balance between profit and life?
Is there a need to give An (Hong) Bao year after years, especially before elections?

We owe Singapore society a debt of not caring for people who are left behind and who are disadvantaged under the profit maximisation model.


A refreshment from Jing Shang

I have just finished watching the series on Jing Shang晋商(山西Shanxi businessmen. Hundred years ago, Shanxi businessmen built their businesses overall China and even expended them to overseas.

They had input culture (drama, opera), values (mainly Confucianism), and trade into one solid foundation for doing business. Through culture and values, they planted the seeds of trusty, honesty and loyalty into their businesses. 

Shanxi businessmen were the ones who established the modern financial institutions (票号) more than hundred years ago in China.  As we all know, without trusty, honesty and loyalty, a financial institution will not survive and expand. These financial institutions were established without law and legal protections (there was no company, banking and financial law) and no formal acknowledgement from the government (there was no legal person status). 

In the later years toward the end of their closurethese financial institutions even sacrificed themselves for the benefit of their depositors.  Which financial institutions today will sacrifice themselves for their depositors?  If this is the case, there is no need for central banks in the world to pass laws to protect the interest of the depositors.    

For those who can understand Mandarin, I recommend you to watch the last episode called “Old trade mark 老字号”. It is a summary of the whole series. Of course, if you have time, it is beneficial to watch the whole series. This can also serve as a typical case study for business schools on social responsibility.

Part 1 of “Old trade mark”

Part 2 of “Old trade mark”

Wednesday, 27 July 2011

不要为了红包而丢了工作

不要为了红包而丢了工作


到底是谁要高经济增长?到底是谁要红包?政府的意思是这些都是国人要的,政府只是随民意,民愿配合演出。好一个调包大话,因此,政府只好落力导演一幕悲剧,不受欢迎的政策,也要一意孤行。不要忘记,国人是要为高增长,大红包付出代价的。

如果,我们回忆2003年陈企业陈抗和黄永宏的论争新闻(见下文),我们今天谈的外来人才,外劳问题似乎是旧闻,而不是新闻。政府一直坚持外来人才,外劳的重要性和好处,这个立场到今天都没有改变,即使是本身的数据得出的结论不同,也可以用强权压倒你。

本月23日:若没有增长,人们就可能连工作都没有

前内阁资政李光耀昨天在首届海外南亚人大会的对话会上,对外来人才成了执政党的政治难题一事,表示这是政府必须面对的。他说:我们还有什么选择?没有外来人才,增长就会缓慢;吸引外来人才,就能取得更快速的增长,尽管这样做会使一些顶端的工作落入外来人才手中?若没有增长,人们就可能连工作都没有。

李光耀斩钉截铁地回答说,新加坡的外来人才政策不受大选影响,而它也不能算是大选课题,因为新加坡人一直都因外来人才的竞争而感受到压力。我坚信外来人才的好处,社会里有更多人才,才会增长得更快。(早报报道)

本月25日:引进外劳速度若放慢, 就业与经济增长也将放缓

我国政府如果放慢引进外劳的速度,我国的就业增长率就会放缓,经济增长也随之降低,那么国人就不能期望政府和以前一样分发那么多的红包。

国大李光耀公共政策学院亚洲竞争力研究所所长陈企业博士在亚洲投资者大会与展览上,就“2011年全国大选后的新加坡中期经济展望和公共政策选择这一课题讲话时这么指出。(早报报道)

陈企业的红包论

陈企业最可爱的地方是他竟然比李光耀更进一步,把外劳,经济成长和国人的红包,连在一起。

他表示:在最悲观的情况,政府在这十年所需的特别拨款要达到203亿元。过去十年因为经济取得5.45%的平均增长,政府能拿出179亿元的特别拨款。那么当平均经济增长放慢到2.8%,政府还要发这么多红包,钱从哪里来

他说,如果政府要继续分发和以往一样多的红包,那只能吃老本了。陈企业说:人民需要理性地思考一下。既不要太高的经济增长和就业增长,又不要政府降低津贴,这是不可能的。早报报道)

换了老板,说话也不一样了

陈企业(还有陈抗)以前好像不是这么说话的。当他们在南洋理工大学经济模型预测部的时候,他们依据人力部的数据,得出的结论是新的就业机会有大部分落入外劳手中。他们为此还
和当时的代人力部长黄永宏据理力争。

是不是换了老板,立场也不一样了。从南大经济系到国大李光耀公共政策学院, 就几年而已,说话也不一样了。贵为亚洲竞争力研究所所长的陈企业博士,满脑子里就只有竞争力,提高竞争力的红包,而忘了高经济增长,领取红包,是否是国人的愿望?是否是国家财富重新分配的最佳选择?

还有,整天想着拿红包,想着兔子撞树,检便宜,贪便利, 到最后,可能连工作也没有了。这点李光耀就高明的多了,
他没有提到红包的后果。

陈企业陈抗为工作机会分析抗辩

当年,在南大的研究中,过去5年(1998-2002)里有高达四分之三的新就业机会落入外地人手中,而好年头期间(1992-1997)则有五分之四的新工作归新加坡人所有。

这两位当时的南大教授也针对黄永宏医生对他们报告的澄清和指责,作出了反驳。他们说:如果我们的研究结果没有反映出实际情况,那人力部就有责任检讨它在网站上的统计资料。
身为关心新加坡利益的专业经济学者,我们从来没想挑起情绪,并会永远在工作中保持专业性。

这几句话,现在听起来是刺耳呢?还是想当年,我们也曾经英勇过。

是谁的心变了

是陈企业改变立场,换了老板,说话也跟着改变了。还是,我们应该自我检讨,没有前进之心,国家要高经济增长,我们却不思长进,既不要红包,也不要外来人才,外劳。

要拿红包,是要付出代价的。陈企业为何没有明说。天下没有免费的午餐,这是一路来,李光耀一直在强调的。

我们是否可以选择自己的路,不要红包。因为,红包已经没有办法让我们做个真正的人,过自己要过的生活。而且,又要受到红包的诱惑,又要受到红包的威胁,做人好难啊,尤其是做新加坡的没钱人!

#下文为陈企业陈抗和黄永宏的论争新闻,谁是谁非读者自我评判,今天谈的外来人才,外劳问题似乎是旧闻,而不是新闻。


新加坡人力部代部长驳斥驳斥南洋理工大学就业研究
2003-08-01
  
在过去5年里,新加坡共制造了102000个新就业机会。在每10个新就业机会中,9个工作由新加坡人做,仅有一个工作由外地人做。

  至于19921997年的好年头期间,就业机会总数则增加了474800个。在这期间的每5个新就业机会中,有两个归新加坡人,其余3个由外地人获得。

  这些数据同南洋理工大学经济模型预测部前天发表的研究结果完全不同。在南大的研究中,过去5年里有高达四分之三的新就业机会落入外地人手中,而好年头期间则有五分之四的新工作归新加坡人所有。

  新加坡人力部代部长黄永宏医生昨天上午召开记者会,针对由陈企业副教授和陈抗副教授领导的南大预测部研究,作出了严厉的驳斥和澄清。

  他说:“我们欢迎学者研究我们的数据和刊物,但对这份南大报告我感到特别失望。我认为所有研究学者都有责任先核对数据,尤其是研究结果相反或惊人的数字,核对数据的准确性应是研究学者一贯的作法。

  如果数据是正确但却反映了不同或很突出的结果,我们应该非常小心对待,避免挑起人们的情绪。如果数字是错误的,发表这些数据造成破坏后,再期望别人核查这些结果,那是不负责任和不专业的作法。

  针对这份南大报告,他们的数字错得太离谱,我们不知道他们是怎么获得这些数字,或者他们用的是什么方法。

  针对黄永宏的说法,发表南大报告的陈企业副教授和陈抗副教授则回应说,他们是从新加坡人力部的网站中获得统计数据,再根据这些公开的资料进行研究。黄永宏医生所公布的数据,是他们没有办法获得的。

  这两位知名南大教授也针对黄永宏医生对他们报告的澄清和指责,作出了反驳。

  如果我们的研究结果没有反映出实际情况,那人力部就有责任检讨它在网站上的统计资料。

  身为关心新加坡利益的专业经济学者,我们从来没想挑起情绪,并会永远在工作中保持专业性。

  黄永宏说,南大学者在研究时并没有向统计局或人力部咨询。他在逐点澄清南大报告时说,19921997年间我国的总就业机会增加了约47万个,而其中60%的新工作是由外地人担任,这显示在高经济增长期间,我国需要外地人,因为我国有许多就业机会,但从事这些工作的新加坡人却不足够。

  没有外地人,我们的增长就会受到抑制。制造业不能满足订单,服务业也不能提供足够的服务,因此我们需要外地人进来。外地人提供了工资缓冲的作用,也满足了我们(对人力)的需求,因此他们对我们是有益的。

  至于19972002年的困难时期,人力部的数据显示90%的新职位由新加坡人担任。黄永宏说,这显示虽然外国工人的政策没有重大改变,但市场对人力的需求下降,新的就业机会少了。尽管如此,外地人却让我们能够获得额外102000个就业机会,其中大部分由新加坡人做。

赞成设劳动力发展局

  也就是说,外地人在好年头和不好的年头,都发挥了他们的作用。这也说明了我们的外国工人政策是正确的。

  不过,针对南大报告中认为将成立的新加坡劳动力发展局,应提供延续教育和一站式职业配对的服务,还有新加坡应积极推动灵活工资制度的建议,黄永宏则表示赞成。

Tuesday, 26 July 2011

The efficient but ineffective PAP



                                          Memory of Deyi 4

The efficient but ineffective PAP

At the Deyi Nomination Centre, you could see the organization efficiency of the PAP and the inefficiency of the oppositions. However, when came to effectiveness, it seemed to be the reverse.

Peter F. Drucker, a 20th century Austrian social scientist and author of many books on organizational management said that businesses should strive for effectiveness in contrast to mere efficiency. A quote from Drucker's book, The Effective Executive, says that "Efficiency is doing things right, effectiveness is doing the right things."

Doing things right

Efficient supporters doing things right
Efficient supporters doing things right

The PAP has an excellent grassroots support and is able to send many people to the nomination centres on the nomination day. They did it in an efficient way, dividing into different GRC, SMC teams and arranging different time for them to march into the nomination  centres.  Days   before the nomination day, the PAP already did the planning asking supports from the PAP branches, NTUC and even RCs or CCCs. 
LKY even said that PA was also part of the PAP.
                                                                       
These people (I don’t like to use the word ‘supporters’ as I believe some may not vote for the PAP eventually) were given some incentives to attend the nomination day event. Transport and food were provided as the PAP could get sponsors easily.

Due to efficient management, these people were disciplined and obedience.  Some could not take the heat and ambulance had to be called. And most of them are not working like housewives, retired persons. Of course, there were some die-hard supporters who took leave.

Doing right things

Effective supporters doing right things
Effective supporters doing right things

On the other side, you could see supporters of the oppositions coming in alone, 2 or 3 or in a group 5 or 6. Although some supporters came in blue, however, most of them wore different colours.  

They could only form part of the school field at Deyi Secondary School. However, when came to shouting for supports. The opposition supporters were united and cheered for RP, SPP and WP candidates.  If you look at the YouTube video, you will know what I mean. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rsJtBeQLvgE

Almost all the PAP candidates only looked at their own supporters when they made their speeches.  That included PM Lee. Sometimes, the shouting was so loud that you could not hear the speeches of the PAP candidates. 

While there were many PAP people there, but they were ‘speechless’, “soundless’; there were no cheer leaders; and they did not even look like a united force even though all wore white.  

2 examples of efficiency and effectiveness

You can find many descriptions and examples in modern management books and publications about efficiency and effectiveness. Here are 2 examples:

<<For example 1, think of a company that was successfully making buggy whips as automobiles became the mode of transportation. Assume that the processes used to make buggy whips were perfect. The relationships of internal and external suppliers and customers were perfect. The suppliers and customers teamed together to make perfect buggy whips. The buggy whips were delivered on or ahead of schedule at the lowest possible cost. This company was very efficient. However, the company and its strategists were not very effective. The company was doing the wrong things efficiently. If they had been effective, they would have anticipated the impending changes and gotten into a different market.

Let's consider a surgery example 2. A surgeon is very skilled, perhaps the best in the country. The impending job is to operate on the patient's left knee. However, the surgeon doesn't perform all the steps of the process leading up to the surgery. Someone else marks the right knee for surgery. However skilled this surgeon is, however fast he performs the surgery (i.e., however efficient he is), this process will not be effective. When the patient awakens from the surgery, he will not be a happy camper. And what about the HMO? Who will pay for a surgery performed on the wrong knee? >>



If you link the 2 examples to the PAP

Example 1:

The buggy whips (like the PAP people) were delivered on or ahead of schedule at the lowest possible cost. (It might be no cost at all as they are many willing sponsors). This company (like the PAP) was very efficient.

However, the company (like the PAP) and its strategists were not very effective. The company (like the PAP) was doing the wrong things efficiently. If they (the PAP) had been effective, they would have anticipated the impending changes (expectation, desires of Singapore voters) and gotten into a different market.

Example 2

Someone else (like the PAP CEC) marks the right knee (wrong strategies) for surgery. However skilled this surgeon is (the powerful PAP), however fast he performs (getting people to nomination centres) the surgery (i.e., however efficient he is), this process will not be effective. When the patient awakens from the surgery, he will not be a happy camper. (When the Singapore voters awake, they are very angry)

Why rally turnouts were so different?

The first example is about manufacturing - hardware and the second is talking about care – software (hearts).

There is a limit to the PAP’s efficiency.  When you need a participation of 10,000, 20,000 or 100,000 people, you need effectiveness.  There are common values or meanings for people to participate in a mass rally.  Just like a football match, you could see the difference between Singapore lion vs. Malaysia tiger and the S-league matches.  Why the former could get a big turnout?

There was no problem for the PAP to get 1,000, 2,000 or even 5,000 to their rallies.  But there is a limit on hardware (sponsored logistics) and software (willingness to come).  

If you consider Jasmine revolution, people who stood against the authority were equipped with poor weapons or no weapons at all.  But how come an inefficient group of people could become an effective force to overthrow the establishments? 

Any implication for PE2011

Singapore voters expect a contest for the coming PE.  If we do have the opportunity to vote, candidate(s) who stand against the powerful Tony Tan may have to take lessons from the GE2011 and turns the inefficient disadvantage to an effective emotional campaign
 
Among the potential candidates, Tony Tan has the best support and most efficient campaign machinery, but whether he also has the effective software to attract voters and win their hearts or not, we will have to wait and see.  He has already begun in his soft approach by caring for a child, giving speeches, lunching with bloggers and even attending religion event.