The Broadband Hustle

When it comes to marketing broadband services, there is no such thing as coincidence. Singapore has a few mobile phone carriers (SingTel, M1, StarHub) and broadband carriers (SingNet, StarHub, Pacific Internet). Now M1 is moving into fixed broadband by re-selling service based on StarHub's cable network.

It's an arrangement familiar in England where BT's OpenReach wholesales aDSL service to many ISPs, including themselves. StarHub will charge $35.71 (£13.27) a month to M1 who will then sell broadband service for up to S$88.50 pm (£32.89).

The wider story is that StarHub and M1 are in one of the two consortiums bidding for the NGNBN (new national fiber network) that is due to be announced any time, although an insider has already tipped it will go to the SingTel consortium.

The non-coincidence is that out of the blue, the Merlion household was cold-called by our existing broadband supplier, StarHub. We have been with them since we arrived 22months ago and have been contract free since the end of the first year. We pay S$59.80 (£22) for an 8Mbps/256kbps service that is Okay.

Given the choice, I'd change to SingNet on aDSL because Starhub do traffic shaping at busy hours. Trying to download (not watch, just download) YouTube videos on a Sunday night just fails, and slows to a crawl during evenings generally. SingNet have a better backend network and indeed use it to stream realtime video for their Mio (said Mee Oh) video on demand (VOD) service.

So when StarHub call and offer 25% off for a 2 year lock-in, I declined faster than a scalded cat. I hate lock-ins and, as is common with most of these deals, the cost to breakout of the deal is to pay the entire outstanding balance up to the end of the lock-in contract.

I haven't moved to SingNet for exactly the same reason. Only their entry level 512kbps aDSL has a 1 year contract term. All the faster plans are 2 years with the usual full penalty breakout. No deal.

The problem is freebies. If I commit to 30months with StarHub, I could get a 'free' laptop. Two years with SingNet gets me mobile discounts or whatever the offer is this month. I can't get a freebie-less deal without the term lock-in because the local market is saturated and stopping subscribers jumping ship at the first whiff of a better deal elsewhere is the main preoccupation of the marketing departments.

This also explains the horrible websites of these providers, especially SingTel [Ed: just re-vamped so looks nice but functionally similar] that, as you may now realise, are not there to inform, but to sell. I go looking for facts and get gypsy carnival style bait'n'switch showmanship. Just read the tiny footnotes if you doubt me.

Singaporeans are mercenary consumers who consider it a statutory obligation to change suppliers to get a better deal and publicly congratulate themselves on their savvy. Most change mobiles every 12 months. In my case, I stay with StarHub not because I'm locked in but because I am not. Lacking clarity of my tenure here in Singapore, I just sit on a contract-free, traffic-shaped StarHub line, paying a little more each month. As they say, Freedom isn't Free.

Bonfire of the Niceties

The National Library Board (NLB) held their (annual?) book sale at the Singapore expo, last Friday thru Sunday. I wandered along with little purpose, although a couple of technical titles was in the back of my mind, and so I sauntered in around midday Friday past early birds already leaving with distinctive white carrier bags closed with cable ties and even stuffed shopping trolleys.

Inside the hall were 50 tables labeled above with simple descriptions such as Adult Fiction and Junior Fiction. Within these categories, the books were a complete jumble so you were left to just wander up and down looking for topics of interest. I grabbed a few, huge technical books, out of date for sure as most titles seemed to be published around 2000, but good enough for S$2 (70p) each.

Far more interesting was the behavior of the patrons. Keeners filled the provided shopping baskets, leaving them at the edge of the hall to return for more books. After amassing anything up to 200 books, they then sat down against the wall and slowly went through their hoard, tossing discards onto a rough pile at their feet, putting keepers in a fresh basket. At the tables, the neat rows of books quickly deteriorated into unkempt mass as selected books were tossed aside.

People behave this way when faced with free or cheap sales; first land-grabbing as much as possible, later to discard what, on reflection, they decide is not for them. I've organised a few jumble sales and there are definite types. The professionals (local gypsies in our case) looking for silver plates or valuable China going for 20p and leave within 10 minutes. Then there's the bag ladies, roughly sorting through clothes and just stuffing anything decent into the bag under their arm, sometimes leaving without payment. Then there's the charitable types, there to support the cause carefully thumbing a Foders guide to Portugal.

The organisation of the book fair was thought through; bags and baskets, helpers wandering around, a DJ at the back playing musak, the exit channels which divided buyers from visitors and guided the former down to packing tables staffed by schoolchildren who packed and counted the items. Then on to the ridiculously over-sized and dreaded Tensa-barrier maze ahead of the cashiers. I hate being in such processes and given the modest turnout, the formality was excessive.

The result was 7 books weighing 8kgs for S$14 (£5) and a disgust for the people who turned a generous opportunity into a greedy, selfish, ugly, rude stampede.

No nostalgia please, we're Singaporean

I was going to take a picture of the lay by, or at least the sign next to it, as it was a quirky reminder of times past. A few yards down the road from the local supermarket, it was barely long enough for 2 cars and I half imagine the sign was for explanation, rather than making a rule:

"Lay by for map reading. No parking."

In an age with GPS satnavs in most cars, it's a nostalgic reminder of well-thumbed city guides on passenger seats; the fingerprints providing a greasy vote on each location's popularity.

But this is one motoring respite that is no more. Indian (Punjabis I'd guess) have already ripped the tarmac and are setting the new kerb stones in line with the road. By the weekend, it will be fresh cow grass and the odd mark from the digger's tracks.

There just isn't any concept of If It Ain't Broke, Don't Fix it. The lay by only protruded into the grass margin, not the pavement so apart from looking straighter on Google Earth, there is no utility from spending money to remove the feature.

Singapore is unremittingly modern and progressive; there is a simmering debate over the older buildings and their fate in an ever developing cityscape. Pretty much without exception, after much hand-wringing and consultation, the old stuff is pulled down. Sometimes it's for technical reasons like the foundations (no piles) into clay are not secure enough for the underground tunnel they want to build. Usually it's because modern office requirements don't match older interiors and there is serious money to be made with redevelopment in prime property areas.

I'm pretty sure you can be too protective of old things. Europeans tend to over value age whereas Chinese traditionally don't and shun hand-me-downs, not least because of potential spiritual entanglements with their previous owner. I shall say farewell to the lay by; I'll be the only one to do so.

Unbearable Tightness of Being

Today's Today paper carried a letter from a commuter who witnesses a minor altercation at an MRT station. All but one of the stations have lifts to access the platform level for accessibility of wheelchair users, those with luggage, push chairs, the infirm, and so on. In this case, it seems many were jostling for the lift:

"On my way to work on Friday, I got off the train at Tanjong Pagar MRT station to the sound of a man in a wheelchair shouting on the platform.

I realised that he was addressing the people in and outside the lift who were not making way for him to enter, and gesticulating at the able-bodied commuters around him to use the stairs and escalators."

I use the MRT lifts occasionally; all, or certainly most, stations have escalators in the UP direction but platforms are long and if you come out of the train next to the lift, why walk along to use the stairs?

This chap decided to have a go:

When I approached a train security attendant and told her what was going on, her reply was: "He should wait, there are many customers, you know."

I'm not surprised, and have written about the non-gracious Singapore. But I spy 2 elements to this incident.

First is the unwillingness of the MRT staff to help out. I put this down to simple fear of one person with little authority trying to chide a small crowd; you're as likely to get shouted at yourself as Singaporeans are feisty and quick to fight back.

Second is a widespread lack of compassion for the weak. From the top down, the policy is resilient self-sufficiency. Getting old and need money for medical care? Keep working. Singaporeans are not all heartless sods but it's a busy city and most people are in a self-absorbing rat race.

The poor chap in the wheelchair would be better off fitting spiked bumpers to the front and powering forward into the crowd. He'd be more respected for his fighting spirit than to sit there and plead for consideration due to infirmity.

Singapore: 29, UK: 49

Vision of Humanity has published their world peace rankings, putting Singapore in a relatively comfortable #29th place, well above Malaysia (#38), UK (#49th) and USA (#97). Topping the list of non-hitters are:

1. Iceland
2. Denmark
3. Norway
4. New Zealand
5. Japan
6. Ireland
7. Portugal
8. Finland
9. Luxembourg
10. Austria
11. Canada
12. Switzerland
13. Sweden

So you might be wondering what is being measured here as some places (Iceland, Denmark) seem natural choices whereas putting Malaysia ahead of England seems to fly in the face of headline news. You can follow the link but comparing UK and Singapore highlighted some standout differences:

Potential for terrorists acts. UK 3, Singapore 2 based on a qualitative assessment of the potential for terrorist acts. Ranked 1-5 (very low-very high) by EIU analysts.

Number of internal and external conflicts fought. UK 4, Singapore 1, based on a UCDP defined conflict as: "a contested incompatibility that concerns government and/or territory where the use of armed force between two parties, of which at least one is the government of a state, results in at least 25 battle-related deaths in a year"

Estimated number of deaths from organised conflict (external). UK 2, Singapore 1.

The democracy and transparency scores drag Singapore down, especially freedom of press (8.3 versus 5.6), but beats UK on corruption (8.4 vs 9.3), an expected strong suit for Singapore.

One to watch perhaps is willingness of citizens to fight in wars. UK 2, Singapore 5 (higher is more willing). Interesting, but we've always got Glasgow...

Urban Trash

Singapore is having another cleanliness drive, particularly litter in the HDB estates and the Government has formed a workgroup to look into dirty habits in the heartland. In reality, it's a simple issue with well understood themes:

Dense HDB living with small individual and large public space reduces personal responsibility. People who in past times would have swept their yard daily now just leave the corridor to be jet-washed by the council.

Littering is perceived as victimless and unpunishable. People who throw tissues and Q-tips out of bathroom windows are never going to be caught. It's the same spots on the void deck apron and under some kitchen windows that are littered; it's patently a minority at fault.

Same with smokers who as a global group seem to be unconcerned that cigarette butts are not biodegradable and, yes, I can see them in the bushes, drains, grass, etc. There's a chap opposite me who smokes at the window (so as not to befoul the flat); he'll stand there, smoking and spitting then flick the butt down onto the void deck apron. Since he stands in exactly the same spot each time, the ledge below his window has a large grey stain from the flicked ash. No one stops him.

The communal letterboxes at the void deck are strewn with junk mail leaflets; I don't blame residents, it's hard to pull out the contents without scattering these 2 x 3" scraps and few bother to stoop down to pick up junk mail. The authorities could stop this in an instant by banning private marketing flyers just as private condos do.

Setting fires for spiritual purposes is passively condoned by the authorities. The daily piles of ash, burnt walls, blobs of wax, burnt joss sticks and smoke continue despite the supplied braziers mere yards away.

Dog walkers? I don't think I've ever seen one with a poop bag. People just know not to walk on grass verges.

The ST article also mentions foreign workers which is low blow; numerically it's a local problem and the lack of enforcement against local recidivists makes this sound astonishingly patronising:

"They do not know that this is an offence here. Therefore, the town council staff and grassroots members have to give them advice. We need some time to educate them."

Apparently our local council is making an extra effort and just today we received a flyer from the local MP in this very topic:

"CLEANLINESS IN HOUSING ESTATES

1. If we look around our estates in mid-morning, by and large, they are very clean. But this doesn't remain for long and by the afternoon littering creeps in. Bits and pieces of paper are strewn from the HDB void decks to the parks and streets in private estates. By night fall it gets worse. Littering has become a persistent problem. Not only is it unsightly, it encourages breeding of pests like mosquitoes, which transmit diseases like malaria and dengue.

2. The National Environment Agency will extend litter enforcement from HDB town centres to the housing estates such as lift lobbies, void decks and letter box areas from April 2008. The first phase will involve a select group of constituencies. Further phrases will be introduced pending a review by NEA after the first three months of operation.

3. Keeping our estates clean is a shared responsibility. It rests with YOU and US. We are ultimately the ones who either make our estates clean or we destroy this beauty with litter everywhere. Between the two, I think your choice is obvious. You want to keep the surrounding areas clean. So let's make a committed collective effort and STOP littering and throwing unwanted receptacles around our estates.

Thank you for your cooperation.

Er LEE BEE WAH
MP for Ang Mo Kio GRC"

Note that the focus is on public health (discarded plastic bags & drink cups may collect water & breed mozzies), not civic pride or aesthetics.

Nothing will change because the daily clean up by the council is an environmental deus ex machina. No matter what mess is created, the faithful council cleaners will be out before 6am restoring order; people do not need to take any personal responsibility. The article confirms this with evidence from the Cleanest Estate awards:

"Yuhua Village Market and Food Centre at Jurong East Street 24 - one of the winning food centres - had relied heavily on stallholder and town council help to keep its premises spotless"

I wouldn't say Singapore is especially blighted by littering; Hong Kong & Malaysia are worse. But Singapore invests heavily in cleaning up and it would enhance a sense of natural justice if some of the above niggles were taken seriously instead of workgroups and photo-ops of MPs jet washing pavements.

Gone Missing

The annual Miss Singapore Universe beauty pageant crowned Shenise Wong as the winner last night but you'll have to read about in the paper as it wasn't televised by MediaCorp due to falling audience interest. Shenise is pretty, tall, dark and a foreign exchange broker who when asked what animal she would most like to be chose a dog, for its loyalty and intelligence.

Even with the publicity from films like Miss Congeniality, a Sandra Bullock and Michael Caine light comedy of a few years back, the tense world of lip gloss and sling backs is a sub-cultural backwater. The Straits Times have a discussion board that is often refreshingly down to earth and welcome contrast to the stuffy tone of the main paper. On this topic, the apathy was tangible so when one commenter linked to the missosology.org and I initially mis-scanned it as misogyny.org (how Freudian is that?).

This is the kind of sideways contextual teleport that is unique to the web. The site's About This Website is a hoot; it was setup by a Filipino in 1998, initially as a personal site, but by 2001 was dedicated to the various Miss Whatever competitions, and was quickly creaking with 115 hits a day, requiring a change of hosting company. Wow, 115. Per day.

Shenise and her canine fantasy now go on to represent Singapore in the international finals held in Vietnam in July.

Generation Game

The weekend paper had a multi-page spread about Generation-Y Singaporeans in the workplace and how their attitudes on life and work differ from previous generations. Given that the purpose of children is to rebel against their parents, I'm wondering where the story is.

Anyway, Gen-Y is loosely defined as those born roughly between 1978 and 1994 and is a simplistic progression from Generation-X (originally coined as a pejorative by fiction writer Douglas Coupland in 1991).

The key characteristics of Gen-Y are that they grew up with digital technology and now use it as part of their everyday lives, so mobile phones, video games, X-Box, Facebook, MySpace, SMS, IM, Twitter; all of which is supposed to explain the Gen-Y trait of seeking instant gratification. How it explains their penchant for using scooters in the office, getting Celtic knot tattoos, piercing their faces with metal bars and saying "Whatever" a lot isn't explained.

The Times had an vaguely amusing quiz to determine if you are a Gen-Y:

1. Do you have your own web page? (1 point)
2. Have you made a web page for someone else? (2 points)
3. Do you keep in touch with your friends via instant messaging? (1 point)
4. Do you SMS your friends? (2 pts)
5. Do you watch vidoes on YouTube? (1 pt)
6. Do you remix videos downloaded from the Internet? (1 pt)
7. Have you bought & downloaded music from the Internet? (1 pt)
8. Do you know how to download free (but illegal) music? (2 pts)
9. Do you blog professionally? (1 pt)
   
10. Do you blog as a online diary (2 pts)
11. Have you used MySpace at least 5 times? (1 pt)
12. Do you communicate with friends viz Facebook? (2 pts)
13. Do you use e-mail with your parents (1 pt)
14. Do you SMS your parents? (2 pts)
15. Do you share photos from your mobile phone with friends (2 pts)

Score yourself as follows:
0-6 points and you are a baby boomer
7-12 points, you are Gen-X
>12 points, Gen-Y

At about 13pts, I am a Gen-Y apparently, despite being ~15 years too old. My ever faithful partner in life scored as a Baby Boomer. Both reasonable results given the quiz covered use of digital technology, not wider attitudes towards work, politics, personal goals, and so on.

The end of the article included a list (gack! about as predictable as a montage in an action movie) of 8 ways to get the best/most from Gen-Yers:

1. Be Precise. Set concrete, aspirational goals to direct their ambition.
2. Boring is Bad. Work needs to be challenging and changing.
3. Constant Recognition. Feed them a regular diet of reinforcement and constant feedback. Do appraisals monthly or quarterly.
4. Group Therapy. Assign teams and leverage their desire for collaboration.
5. Work-Like Balance. They have lots of outside interests; get to know what they are and leave time for them.
6. Generation Why. Explain the big picture and what part they play in it.
7. No Bullying. Command-&-control leadership fails, use Emotional Intelligence.
8. Office Party. Make work fun and employee-centered.

Why make a big story about young people labeled with an ill-defined and disputed moniker? There's little Singaporean spin on the story and much of it could be a straight AP piece off the wire. It does play to young people as reassuring recognition from nasty authority types. Mainly it confirms what we already know, that young people are selfish hedonists who are a pain to integrate into post-industrial, commercial enterprises. It's called Generation-Next and ever will it be so.

Think of the Children

Generally I disfavour banning things and prefer to encourage restraint and tolerance. So it's curious that Singapore manages to do both, a kind of moral third way; they have a mass of restrictive regulations and but also rely on public self-censorship to keep everything harmonious.

For example, sexual content in the media; I'm not fussed but it's like a boiling pan than spits steam out from the lid unpredictably such as the following, recent cases where the MDA (Media Development Authority) acted on illegal publications:

• Jan08; MediaCorp TV Channel 5 ran an episode of “Find and Design,” a home and décor series, featuring a gay couple transforming their game room into a nursery for their adopted baby. The MDA: “The episode contained several scenes of the gay couple with their baby as well as the presenter’s congratulations and acknowledgment of them as a family unit in a way which normalizes their gay lifestyle and unconventional family setup.” The episode violated the “Free-to-Air TV Program Code,” which forbids shows that “promote, justify or glamorize gay lifestyles.” Fine: $15,000.
• Apr08; Cable operator StarHub fined $10,000 for airing a music video showing two women kissing for about nine seconds.
• Nov07: Xbox 360 video game Mass Effect banned because it contains a lesbian love scene between a human(oid) and an alien. (Judge for yourself: YouTube, "Mass Effect"). To be fair, the MDA reversed this decision with an interim game classification system pending the new video game ratings scheme.

It's not the MDA's fault, they are just applying the law but all media censorship starts to look silly eventually. Producers openly attack the margins by pushing the acceptable guidelines then negotiating with the censor to retain borderline material. Age ratings on video games is sensible but useless; if you can't keep drugs and mobile phones out of prisons, you won't stop 16yo kids buying an M18 rated video game.

It's hard to say whether such prudishness has broad support. Singapore has a significant and active Christian community that consistently lobbies against gay rights and Chinese culture is morally conservative. On the other hand, mostly people follow a live-and-let-live philosophy.

The Government's goal is self-censorship; keep Singapore tidy, don't cause a fuss or offence. The official line is of "liberalising", while retaining "a very strong conservative core", which if you can stop giggling over the inherent absurdity, is a good description of the duality of approach. The OxBridge political elite are open minded but must keep in step with the public in matters of conscience.

I reflected on these official attitudes while waiting to cross the road at Orchard on Sunday. On the other side was a tall, white foreigner, wearing shorts, an iPod, Oakley shades, inline skates and several tattoos. He looked like he'd dropped through a worm hole from Venice beach, California. The sideways glances and nervous titters from fellow pedestrians confirms just how outlandish this is in Singapore. I consider myself reasonably in-touch with the local vibe and I did briefly wonder what laws he must be breaking. Talk about going native!

Strap-On Respectability

I am not qualified to write about bras, being only a passive observer, but the particular sartorial preferences of the local ladies demand some comment. As I understand from the mass media, the purpose of a bra is primarily to provide comfortable support and secondly for visual elegance combining a desire to keep the garment invisible when fully dressed, and attractive when not.

Now you are probably way ahead of me by now as we both know, the Asian body shape is notably petite. You might even flirt with the idea that bras are not always technically necessary but you would be making a huge mistake. Bras are more than necessary, they are mandatory, irrespective of body shape. No Chinese woman can go out (of their bedroom) without a bra of respectability. It would be indecent and shameful otherwise.

With this in mind, we can now see that bra wearers have quite different priorities in Singapore. First: respectability. Second: support (as required). It is therefore quite desirable to explicitly prove that you are indeed wearing one which leads to the common sight of bras in strong colours (red, purple) whose shoulder straps are not only visible, but explicitly so.

So whereas a European lady would choose a blouse or top then select a bra of compatible colour and strap design to be hidden under the blouse, Singaporeans do the exact opposite. White sports top with X-style back design? That would be the black bra with straight straps then.

It's the equivalent of wearing a strapless dress with a strapped bra, on purpose, everyday. It is a most curious intersection of fashion and traditional, conservative Chinese values.

Complacent, Moi?

You may remember I mentioned the strange and sudden loss from secure custody of Mas Selamat. He was being detained, without charge or trial, under security laws for links to terrorism. I also reported MM Lee's commentary that his escape showed a worrying complacency, a milder word that most would use to describe such a lapse.

Last week's Times ran a full page piece building on the story titled "Kiasu, Kiasi ... now complacent" where they widened the debate:

His rebuke was directed at the security agencies ... but it applied equally to Singaporeans at large, who may have been lulled by decades of peace into believing that Singapore is a place where things do not go wrong.

This then is the Singapore paradox: a pervasive fear of losing (kiasu) .. side by side with a sense of satisfaction and security that sometimes borders on smugness

The Times is the primary daily paper; the paper of record. It is independent but is still part of the system. It never takes a campaigning stance against the Government and while it does report all news, good and bad, it is always careful to balance the debate. (I joke that it manages to find 3 sides to every argument). It is unfailingly upbeat, highlighting positive responses to issues. So for the latest rice micro-crisis which sees rising monthly food bills, it splashes across 3 pages, typical families (Chinese, Malay, Indian) and how they immediately examined their weekly food basket to eliminate luxuries (Ben & Jerry's ice cream) and re-balance their budget.

So, complete, balanced, upbeat and sometimes incredibly dull. It almost makes you wish for a Daily Mail just to spice things up a bit and indeed the freebie tabloid My Paper is more direct and entertaining.

Anyway, back to complacency. So the Times then goes on to give possible reasons for this presumed public complacency:

1. Side effect of long-term successful Government
2. Lack of crisis
3. Lack of awareness of how Government works

And it's true that a competent, successful semi-autocracy has steered Singapore through an amazing 50 years. The major crime prevention campaign slogan is "Low crime doesn't mean no crime", that is, to highlight the continued existence of crime. Contrast that with (former British Home Secretary) Michael Howard who was advised by his Principle Secretary upon taking office that his job was to "manage down public expectations that crime can be prevented".

What amused me were the letters to the Times' editor printed a week later whose consistent message was that if the public is complacent it's because the Government has spent 50 years telling everyone about the wonderful and hardworking civil servants doing a fantastic job and how amazing Singapore is. Touche!

You can't have it both ways; either the Government is competent and the public stands back or it's not and the public demands scrutiny. The debate is relevant to Singapore's political and business leaders but the Times went too far to expand the charge of complacency to the entire population.

Acting Asian

One of the blogs I read regularly had an article about academic swotiness. I don't have first hand experience of this (obviously) but it is a perjorative within the American black community to be accused of "acting white". In school it is apparently used against pupils who academically excel. The article says this is now passe and the new term is "acting Asian".

Which makes me wonder what a Singaporean school kid would understand if accused of "acting white"? Given the famously elitist Singaorean school system it's likely the opposite meaning of the American one.

This segues nicely with another commentator who suggests that Children of Overbearing, High Stress Parents Hit Singles and Doubles. The hypothesis is that kids subjected to extraordinary stress to achieve academically will go on to be good solid performers in life. Probably not drug-taking dropouts or high-flying Nobel prize winners, but middle of the bell-curve.

To steal from our earlier discussion of hedgehogs vs. foxes in business, you might say that the "overbearing parenting style" has a high expected value but low variance, whereas the "hands-off independent style" has extreme outcomes on either end of the distribution curve.

Singaporean parents (esp. Chinese) are stereotypical pushy of their kids and it is a national goal to get a Nobel prize winner. Personally I think such awards are lotteries and the small population of Singapore doesn't give them many chances to win, but the educationally-induced attitudes are a commonly cited factor also.

EQ & Employee Disengagement

I attended an in-house, company presentation entitled "Enhancing EQ" by an external HR consultant, ostensibly part of the company's EAP.

It wasn't a great presentation partly because the goal was to promote their business (rather than educate the audience) and partly because it's a huge topic. Having said that, I could summarize the 1 hour easily:

1. Obvious: We all have emotions / feelings.

2. Interesting: People have different emotions about the same event.

3. Crucial: Our sub-conscious plays a huge and often unappreciated role in our emotional responses.

Explaining #3 wasn't even attempted except via some trivial examples and given it is the main point, left me, and I suspect others, confused and unsatisfied. A double-whammy was that she managed to emphasise employee dissatisfaction without offering hope or remedy. At one point, when she asked what our emotional reaction to being fired would be, the room almost pulsed with a collective "woo hoo". D'oh!

This slow-motion train wreck of a presentation did contain one fascinating point, mentioned in passing, that a Gallup survey found Singaporean workers were amongst the worst for workplace disengagement. Now this needs investigating ...

The original Oct 2003 Gallup survey is for paid/registered users only.

The next best is a Singapore Commentator piece itself referring to a NY Times article (now unavailable) but adds some fascinating words on the Freudian psychology of bullying bosses (which is a topic all of its own).

Better, there is a Government reference in a speech by Ms Yong Ying-I, Permanent Secretary (Manpower) which is worth reading in its entirety, but for example, quoted:

... that Singaporean workers were among the least committed workers amongst the world's developed economies.

and

... some 12 % of Singapore's workers felt actively disengaged from their jobs. But this ISR survey goes further in concluding that the key driver for their lack of commitment was their disenchantment with corporate leadership

I liked the "we needed productive, disciplined workers" part. Disciplined? I think she was heading for "obedient" but missed for whatever reason.

Para #8 explicitly cites the danger of dissatisfied knowledge workers seeking employment overseas to find a conducive workplace. Ouch. This is dynamite stuff and very much on-message as far as I am concerned.

Para #16 lays into the school system, e.g.: "When the human spirit is dampened down, there can be no passion."

I give up on the excerpts; just read the whole thing. It's all true I tell you.

Never Say No

I first read of the idea that Singaporean workers never say No in a blog entry and mentally filed it under to be tested. Well, it may be true. Certainly my coworkers tend to say things like "I just do what the boss wants" and "She says, I do". I'd like to think it is just the usual distain of management sprinkled with a little Singaporian authoratarian icing sugar.

Alas, I am beginning to suspect not. The attitude is prevalent in the wider cultural context also, heavily influenced I presume by a paternal government, a strict educational system, mandatory national service (for men) and 5000 years of Chinese emperors. To me it's a real shame because I value ideas and innovation, neither of which tend to flourish in the presence of such attitudes. Or as another blog entry talking about business startups said:

"Singapore seems very aware of the importance of encouraging startups. But while energetic government intervention may be able to make a port run efficiently, it can't coax startups into existence. A state that bans chewing gum has a long way to go before it could create a San Francisco."

I'd hope to prove him wrong but the potter can only throw the clay that is a hand.