TR EMERITUS

By Richard Lu Transparency International (TI) publishes an annual Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) according to "the degree to which corruption is perceived to exist among public officials and politicians".   Corruption is best described as "the abuse of entrusted power for private gain".  The maximum score or index is 10 and a country with a high score is “perceived” as being least corrupt.   In 2009, Singapore was placed No. 3 after New Zealand and Demark with an index of 9.2.   Just in case we go away with the notion that we have arrived, readers must understand how the index is derived and why it is controversial and not accepted as an accurate measure of corruption.   Firstly, the CPI is derived from a compilation of surveys that ask businessmen and analysts, both in and outside the countries they are analyzing, their perceptions of how corrupt a country is.  The index therefore relies on third-party surveys that may be potentially unreliable.  Data vary widely because of the different methodologies used, the completeness of the surveys and different samples employed every year.   Secondly, the laws of each country vary and so is the enforcement process.  Therefore the actual number of corruption cases in each country cannot be an accurate measure.   Thirdly, corruption happens behind the scenes and hence the difficulty in its detection.   The survey is controversial although it does not lack objectivity.  TI receives criticisms over the years. The CPI authors reply to criticisms by reminding the users of the data that the CPI is meant to measure perception and not "reality".   The results are therefore difficult to evaluate due to the constant moving of the goal posts and yardsticks used.  What is important to note is that "perceptions matter in their own right, since... firms and individuals take actions based on perceptions".   Statistics like the CPI in itself is not accurate.  By looking at the index over a few years, the year-to-year changes in a country's result and the samples and methodology used, a perception of a country's performance can be obtained.  This means that a change in perception of corruption of a country would only emerge in the index over longer periods of time.   Although the CPI is put out by Transparency International it is an irony that it does not measure the “transparency” of a government or government-linked businesses and activities e.g. GLCs, sovereign wealth funds, statutory boards.  Singaporeans will never know what goes on in say the GLCs, Temasek Holdings, GIC, People’s Association, etc.     Thus we will never be told how Temasek Holdings’ CEO Ho Ching appointed this “special adviser”, the former SGX CEO Mr. Hsieh Fu Hua; why was he appointed, what are his terms of engagement, what is his remuneration, etc.  Is this a retirement job or a reward for his faithful service as CEO of SGX?   Wasn’t there a head-hunt for the appointment?   What makes him so eminently qualified that a position was created for him immediately after his stint as CEO of SGX?   Really, to be transparent and accountable, the answers to these questions must be forthcoming and released quickly.   Temasek Holdings must ultimately belong to the people of Singapore and must be accountable to the people of Singapore.  The sooner the people in charge of Temasek Holding realize this, the better.  This is not a perception like the CPI but a reality.  Singaporeans want and demand transparency and now.  Will they (the people in charge) not see this?   By the way, we should not be shouting or crowing about the fact that we are third after New Zealand and Demark on the TI list of least corrupt countries.  The Government must not bask in this fact and feel that there is no need to be transparent or accountable at all.  Whilst we may least corrupt, we may also be the least transparent of countries and this perception is not a good one.  Read More →

Written by Our Correspondent The Resorts World Sentosa (RWS) casino was supposed to attract "high-end" customers to spend their money there, but ended up being flooded by foreign workers in the first five days of its operations much to the chagrin of gamblers. According to a Lianhe Wanbao report, the casino which was officially opened last Saturday on Chinese New Year's eve, had been swarmed by foreign workers who flocked there for free drinks. They ended up blocking the entrance and crowding the place, preventing gamblers from placing their bets in the process. Foreigners are allowed to enter the casino completely free of charge while Singaporeans and PRs are subjected to a $100 levy per entry. A 55 year old businessman by the name of Mr Huang told Lianhe Wanbao that many foreign workers fell asleep on the floor of the casino and each gambling table is surrounded by more than 10 of them who blocked other gamblers from placing their bets. Some Singaporeans interviewed felt that the casino should impose restrictions on the entry of foreign workers as they may resort to crime should they lose their savings on the gambling table. Already, one Indonesian was jailed 4 weeks for stealing a handphone after he lost his money at the RWS casino. With the end of the festive season, the number of visitors to the casino is expected to dip. The two IRs were launched amidst much fanfare by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong in 2005 to diversify Singapore's economy and to attract more tourists to Singapore. Faced with intense competition from casinos in Malaysia and Macau, it remains to be seen if the two casinos are able to draw in the heavy spenders or just foreign workers who simply loiter at the premises without spending a single cent. News source: Lianhe Wanbao  Read More →

Dear Mr Lee,   I refer to your comments made at the Japanese Chamber of Commerce and Industry Singapore's 40th anniversary celebrations as reported by Straits Times on 11 Dec 2009.   You said old people don't change cars, television sets or golf clubs every year.  Neither do younger people.  In fact, changing cars and consumer goods every year is not only wasteful but detrimental to the environment.  If we were to take your argument to the extreme and change cars every day, we will end up bankrupting ourselves and all our productive funds will end up in the junk yard in the form of junk cars.  We need meaningful consumption, not mindlessly increasing consumption.   You said exports depend on the domestic market having first tried out the product.  But Japan has 127 million people, more than enough to test products.  Finland has a population of 5 million only.  Yet they delivered Nokia.   You said by 2050, there will be an expected 1.2 Japanese workers for every old folk, down from the current 3.7 and you said that is a terrible problem.  But that is not a terrible problem, its a necessary outcome.  If there are more young than old, then the population will keep growing and growing in a finite space that is already very over crowded.  At some point, the population must stabilise in order not to over stress the land.  Population stablity requires that the ratio between the young and the old must be closer to one.   Furthermore, the Japanese saves a lot.  If every Japanese saves enough for his or her own retirement, he or she will not be a burden to future generations.  So the key is that no matter how many people we have, as long as everyone is meaningfully engaged in earning a decent income throughout his or her productive years, no one has to be a burden to anyone else.   You can't just count the permanent residents and new citizens and pretend that the rest of the foreigners don't exist.  They compete for space in trains and housing units just the same.   You said if we removed 1.2 million foreigners, all restaurants, theatres, everything will be one third empty.  Conversely, if we added 1.2 million foreigners, will our restaurants be one third over filled?  Certainly not.  Instead, we'd end up with one third more restaurants than before.  Similarly if we were to remove 1.2 million foreigners, we will have one third less restaurants, not restaurants that are one third empty.  There is nothing wrong with having one third less restaurants when we have one third less people.  If you have one third less people in your house would you need the same number of chopsticks or computers as before?     Thank you     Ng Kok Lim  Read More →