The CEOs of Merrill Lynch and Citigroup have been asked to leave over the past one week when the sub prime debacle blow up in their face.
It is interesting to note that many deemed that CEOs are being paid way too much relative to the ordinary worker, but when they are asked to leave suddenly, there are little mention of the simple theorem of "high risk, high returns"
Also, at the end of the day, only a selected few can perform effectively at a CEO level of major corporations. A great CEO can significantly add value to any company, especially by hiring and retaining the right talents for the right position at the right time....
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
Monday, October 22, 2007
Observation on SG blogsphere with regards to Section 377A
1. At the end of the day, no matter how much digital ink has been spilled on the issue (or any other issues), it is the government who has political power to decide. Many SG bloggers definitely want to say their piece, but to really change anything in Singapore at the national policy level, running for election and winning political power is a must.
2. The SG blogsphere appear to be overwhelming liberal based on the reactions from this issue. Therefore, how effective is the blogsphere to influence the majority in Singaporean when it is overly represented by a relatively much more liberal base? This is a reflection of US news media where most of the channels are liberal (e.g. CNN) until Fox come along. In Singapore, the mainstream is more conservative, which may be on reason why the SG blogsphere is much more liberal.
2. The SG blogsphere appear to be overwhelming liberal based on the reactions from this issue. Therefore, how effective is the blogsphere to influence the majority in Singaporean when it is overly represented by a relatively much more liberal base? This is a reflection of US news media where most of the channels are liberal (e.g. CNN) until Fox come along. In Singapore, the mainstream is more conservative, which may be on reason why the SG blogsphere is much more liberal.
Saturday, September 29, 2007
Comments section taken off the Straits Times Interactive
Why has the comment option of the Straits Time Interactive has been removed?
STI may not realized the simple phenomena that readers who actually made the effort to write comments often feel strongly for or against the article, and therefore the comments are often relatively one-sided.
Given that STI tends to report more favorably on the actions of the government, it is not surprising the comments left on STI aim to balance that by being less favorably on the government.
The same phenomena is reflected in feedback ratings of Amazon.com or Yelp.com. Even though the normal distribution will suggests more 3 ratings out of a rating of 1 to 5, most of the ratings are often 1 and 5, and very few 3s. Readers or users who feel strongly will make the effort to do the review, and this is also the problem faced by internet-based survey causing bias sampling.
Therefore, read the comments on blogs and reviews knowing that you are hearing the vocal minority and obviously not the silent majority. Don't be overly shaped by these comments and reviews.....form your own judgment.
STI may not realized the simple phenomena that readers who actually made the effort to write comments often feel strongly for or against the article, and therefore the comments are often relatively one-sided.
Given that STI tends to report more favorably on the actions of the government, it is not surprising the comments left on STI aim to balance that by being less favorably on the government.
The same phenomena is reflected in feedback ratings of Amazon.com or Yelp.com. Even though the normal distribution will suggests more 3 ratings out of a rating of 1 to 5, most of the ratings are often 1 and 5, and very few 3s. Readers or users who feel strongly will make the effort to do the review, and this is also the problem faced by internet-based survey causing bias sampling.
Therefore, read the comments on blogs and reviews knowing that you are hearing the vocal minority and obviously not the silent majority. Don't be overly shaped by these comments and reviews.....form your own judgment.
Sunday, September 16, 2007
Cycling event .. .soon forgetton
Singaporeans have short memory, especially in the blogsphere
After mr brown and the online citizen (two of the most widely read blogs) have shown clearly the alleged double standard the PAP has practiced by not allowing Worker Party to organize a cycling event while the Young PAP had done so in the past, nothing really happen in the last few days.
The mainstream media such as The Straits Times, Today, New Paper, Lianho Zaobao refused to chase the story why the Young PAP took these cycling events down from the websites very shortly (2-3 days later- what a coincidence!) after the rejection of the Worker's party application, and so nothing much really happen.
Now the current hot issue is the Mr Otto Fong being asked by his employer to take down his blog which has an open letter stating he is gay, and lots of blogs have articles on the incident. Is anyone else still blogging on the apparent double standards of the PAP with regards to the rejection of the Worker Party application?
It will be fair to estimate that the socio-political articles are followed regularly (once a week) by a very small percentage of Singaporean (<0.25%-2% / 10,000-80,000), and even this small percentage doesn't really take actions to the larger community. The most efforts these readers take is to leave both intelligent and random comments on these articles.
Nothing wrong with writing about all these events that happen and then nothing much happen, but this just shows the mainstream media still play a very big role in influencing Singaporeans. The blogsphere seems to have limited ability to compel the government to answer to some of their actions, unless the mainstream media decides to pursue the news.
After mr brown and the online citizen (two of the most widely read blogs) have shown clearly the alleged double standard the PAP has practiced by not allowing Worker Party to organize a cycling event while the Young PAP had done so in the past, nothing really happen in the last few days.
The mainstream media such as The Straits Times, Today, New Paper, Lianho Zaobao refused to chase the story why the Young PAP took these cycling events down from the websites very shortly (2-3 days later- what a coincidence!) after the rejection of the Worker's party application, and so nothing much really happen.
Now the current hot issue is the Mr Otto Fong being asked by his employer to take down his blog which has an open letter stating he is gay, and lots of blogs have articles on the incident. Is anyone else still blogging on the apparent double standards of the PAP with regards to the rejection of the Worker Party application?
It will be fair to estimate that the socio-political articles are followed regularly (once a week) by a very small percentage of Singaporean (<0.25%-2% / 10,000-80,000), and even this small percentage doesn't really take actions to the larger community. The most efforts these readers take is to leave both intelligent and random comments on these articles.
Nothing wrong with writing about all these events that happen and then nothing much happen, but this just shows the mainstream media still play a very big role in influencing Singaporeans. The blogsphere seems to have limited ability to compel the government to answer to some of their actions, unless the mainstream media decides to pursue the news.
Police Chief Tour of Duty
Police Commissioner Khoo Boon Hui has served Singapore as the Police Chief faithfully since 1997. However, given that the maximum length of service for our Public Sector Leadership (PSL) such as Permanent Secretary and Deputy Secretary to be 10 years, are we expecting Commissioner Khoo Boon Hui to step down soon?
The need for political competition.
Microsoft and PAP are alike in many ways. They provide what most common users/citizens need daily. They are very competent, and constantly innovate from within. They desire to have the best talents, and the best practices. They continually create value for their customers/people.
On the other hand, they are a monopolistic player in their respective spheres - software and politics. They have little credible opposition players in their respective spheres.Why is the US government suing Microsoft for antitrust behaviors then, if Microsoft is competent, and generated immense value for the US economy?
The answer is very simple.
Americans understand the need for competition. External driven competition is always more intense, always forces everyone to response better to their customers, and always provide better valued products at lower cost. History had and is constantly vindicating this phenomenon, rejecting the idea than internal driven innovation and betterment are better than external-driven ones. As many discerning consumers and businesses lament the lack of competition in the US software industry, I lament the lack of political competition in the Singapore political sphere.
The PAP, and Singapore citizens may actually benefit more if we have stronger competition in the political arena. But alas, we do not have the equivalent of the US antitrust laws for Singapore political sphere, so as to ensure that the possible growth of credible opposition parties in a one- party dominated political environment. The question is: When will substantial political competition ever take place in Singapore?
Monday, April 16, 2007
Why the People Action Party (PAP) needs the Opposition?
Let's try a thought experiment.
Imagine PAP wining all the seats in Parliament . No more opposition members in the Parliament. Convenient?
How will the international community perceived this result? Will they perceived Singapore to be a more politically stable country, or will they perceived Singapore to be more vulnerable without institutional checks and balance.
For a world that is moving towards more pluralistic governments, it seem the answer will be the latter rather than the former.
In addition, the PAP needs the Opposition to serve Singapore. More opposition members asking more substantial questions makes the government (PAP) works harder to provide the answers, and to increase disclosure, which is something that the Asian Financial Crisis taught everyone, including us.
Should we have opposition members in the Parliament?
Ultimately, you decide.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
