|
Back
 x 0
 x 0
|
gamIng
wInners FAF [Free And Free]
lOsers PAP [Pay And Pay]
|
|
Good Post
Bad Post
|
x 0
x 0
|
Let’s do our bid for a $2 COE
|
Source:
|
The Sunday Times
|
Author:
|
Khoo How San
|
Sunday: 5th September 2010
Someone asked me:
Will you bid for a certificate of entitlement (COE) if you see your dream car beckoning from the showroom?
Then I had a dream.
I dreamt of snagging a $2 COE and dashing over to get my metallic object of desire.
Why a $2 COE?
It has happened before - on a day in November 2008.
True, it happened amid a banking crisis-sparked recession. The COE price for Category A cars (up to 1600cc) crashed to $2.
As my colleague Christopher Tan wryly pointed out: 'On the afternoon of the freak $2 result, those monitoring the tender noticed that a crash might be imminent. Hence they went in with ultra-low bids.
'It was a confluence of many aligned stars: the world economy was tanking, people were losing their jobs, salaries were being cut, and last but not least, COE supply was near its highest.
'Plus, the car 'population' had become very young after years of abundant COEs. Plus, many people were stuck with cars bought at high loans, and were not able to trade them in for new ones.'
In other words, car showrooms were empty and it was mostly individuals, not the dealers bidding on behalf of buyers, who put in bids that fateful November 2008 day.
Maybe it was because I had recently seen the movie Inception, but in my dream, people bought into the idea that they should do their own COE bidding, skipping the car dealers' package deal.
Hence, the $2 COE for Category A was replicable, without most of those underlying factors my colleague cited.
In my dream, I first 'entered' the mind of the person who devised the scheme, to grasp the fuel-injected mechanics of the COE system. He or she must have had a devilish sense of humour and understood Fallen Man.
This person created a bidding set-up that tantalised would-be car buyers with a minimum $1 bid price yet set the actual bid price at the sum Bidder X will pay. Simply put, Bidder X is the price setter.
He epitomises you and me, who desire a 'low' COE but will pay up for a 'high' COE simply because you and I have already made up our minds to buy a car, and we see others rushing to the showrooms (the best shorthand here is 'kiasuism', or fear of losing out).
In my dream, this kiasuism was expunged from our human nature.
Instead, a number of bidders were prepared to become what I shall call 'suckers'. But that is not a fair label, because these people did want a new car but were prepared to wait many months for it. They were 'public-spirited'.
Remember, it was a dream.
You can go to the Land Transport Authority's website on how COE bidding works, or you can Google 'how COE works' for simple yet accurate examples.
I'll use a simplified illustration myself.
Supposing there are 10 Category A COEs for the current bidding round. Technically, everyone - say, 20 bidders - can bid at $1. But there is no price setter to enable 10 bidders to secure the 10 COEs. All 20 have 'lost' and the 10 COEs go into the next bidding round.
Bidder X comes into being, in this example, if 10 people had bid only $1 and the 11th bidder had put down $2. He is the price setter. The 12th to 20th bidders, together with Bidder X, secure all 10 COEs.
These others (apart from Bidder X) had all bid more than $2. Bidder No. 20 can even bid $1 million or more and still get his COE at $2.
In fact, this kiasuism was understood by the devilish creator of the scheme, since a high bid ensures the bidder's success! It also, typically and across the board, ensures in the real world that COE prices are not freak $2 ones.
But should many be like the 20th bidder, and bid outrageously?
The ancient Chinese said, 'You may get what you wish for.' The $1 million sum may well become the price setter if bidders 1 to 10 bid from $1 to $999,999 and bidders 12 to 20 bid above $1 million.
If you have now truly grasped this Nobel Prize-worthy scheme, enter my dream world, and bid with me to get that $2 COE.
Indeed, and this is real, not from the dream, the LTA has been on our side, helping out by allowing real-time transparency. You can actually monitor the bids.
To repeat my dream scenario, individuals - not car dealers - did the bidding. Also, there were enough 'suckers' who bid $1 to enable Bidder X to set the price at $2. But who wants to be a sucker?
Think of it this way: Even with the current annual COE quotas, how many genuine car buyers will be thwarted from getting their new cars within a reasonable time?
Even if the wait is a year, remember, that COE will cost only $2! * It is defInItely wOrth it ! *
Assuming there are 600 Category A COEs up for bidding (I use only one category to simplify my model), 599 people must bid more than $2, and only one must bid $2.
The rest (just one person if there are only 601 bidders) must bid $1.
As an alternative, only 601 people need to bid in this round, and plus or minus 600 in the next round, based on the actual available COEs each time. In this case, only one person puts in the $1 bid and the other 600 can put in $2.
Come on, we can do it.
Just hold back on your need for a car this round.
It's worth it, for a $2 COE. Haha.
The writer is The Sunday Times' copyeditor.
Pasted from <http://www.cpf.gov.sg/imsavvy/infohub_article.asp?readid={533534806-6311-3618128299}>
|
|
Good Post
Bad Post
|
x 0
x 0
|
Free And Free [FAF]
Pay And Pay [PAP]
|
|
Good Post
Bad Post
|
x 0
x 0
|
mOst UnethIcal gamIng scheme ? ? ? ?
allOws IrrespOnsIble gamIng by bIddIng at S$1 mIllIOn ? ? ? ?
wIth gamIng chance tO pay fOr Only S$2 ? ? ? ?
BAN It ethIcally as It Is a fOrm Of gamIng ? ? ? ?
an IncentIvIsed gamIng scheme [IGS] ? ? ? ?
pharoah88 ( Date: 10-Sep-2010 16:07) Posted:
|
Let’s do our bid for a $2 COE
|
Source:
|
The Sunday Times
|
Author:
|
Khoo How San
|
Sunday: 5th September 2010
Someone asked me:
Will you bid for a certificate of entitlement (COE) if you see your dream car beckoning from the showroom?
Then I had a dream.
I dreamt of snagging a $2 COE and dashing over to get my metallic object of desire.
Why a $2 COE?
It has happened before - on a day in November 2008.
True, it happened amid a banking crisis-sparked recession. The COE price for Category A cars (up to 1600cc) crashed to $2.
As my colleague Christopher Tan wryly pointed out: 'On the afternoon of the freak $2 result, those monitoring the tender noticed that a crash might be imminent. Hence they went in with ultra-low bids.
'It was a confluence of many aligned stars: the world economy was tanking, people were losing their jobs, salaries were being cut, and last but not least, COE supply was near its highest.
'Plus, the car 'population' had become very young after years of abundant COEs. Plus, many people were stuck with cars bought at high loans, and were not able to trade them in for new ones.'
In other words, car showrooms were empty and it was mostly individuals, not the dealers bidding on behalf of buyers, who put in bids that fateful November 2008 day.
Maybe it was because I had recently seen the movie Inception, but in my dream, people bought into the idea that they should do their own COE bidding, skipping the car dealers' package deal.
Hence, the $2 COE for Category A was replicable, without most of those underlying factors my colleague cited.
In my dream, I first 'entered' the mind of the person who devised the scheme, to grasp the fuel-injected mechanics of the COE system. He or she must have had a devilish sense of humour and understood Fallen Man.
This person created a bidding set-up that tantalised would-be car buyers with a minimum $1 bid price yet set the actual bid price at the sum Bidder X will pay. Simply put, Bidder X is the price setter.
He epitomises you and me, who desire a 'low' COE but will pay up for a 'high' COE simply because you and I have already made up our minds to buy a car, and we see others rushing to the showrooms (the best shorthand here is 'kiasuism', or fear of losing out).
In my dream, this kiasuism was expunged from our human nature.
Instead, a number of bidders were prepared to become what I shall call 'suckers'. But that is not a fair label, because these people did want a new car but were prepared to wait many months for it. They were 'public-spirited'.
Remember, it was a dream.
You can go to the Land Transport Authority's website on how COE bidding works, or you can Google 'how COE works' for simple yet accurate examples.
I'll use a simplified illustration myself.
Supposing there are 10 Category A COEs for the current bidding round. Technically, everyone - say, 20 bidders - can bid at $1. But there is no price setter to enable 10 bidders to secure the 10 COEs. All 20 have 'lost' and the 10 COEs go into the next bidding round.
Bidder X comes into being, in this example, if 10 people had bid only $1 and the 11th bidder had put down $2. He is the price setter. The 12th to 20th bidders, together with Bidder X, secure all 10 COEs.
These others (apart from Bidder X) had all bid more than $2. Bidder No. 20 can even bid $1 million or more and still get his COE at $2.
In fact, this kiasuism was understood by the devilish creator of the scheme, since a high bid ensures the bidder's success! It also, typically and across the board, ensures in the real world that COE prices are not freak $2 ones.
But should many be like the 20th bidder, and bid outrageously?
The ancient Chinese said, 'You may get what you wish for.' The $1 million sum may well become the price setter if bidders 1 to 10 bid from $1 to $999,999 and bidders 12 to 20 bid above $1 million.
If you have now truly grasped this Nobel Prize-worthy scheme, enter my dream world, and bid with me to get that $2 COE.
Indeed, and this is real, not from the dream, the LTA has been on our side, helping out by allowing real-time transparency. You can actually monitor the bids.
To repeat my dream scenario, individuals - not car dealers - did the bidding. Also, there were enough 'suckers' who bid $1 to enable Bidder X to set the price at $2. But who wants to be a sucker?
Think of it this way: Even with the current annual COE quotas, how many genuine car buyers will be thwarted from getting their new cars within a reasonable time?
Even if the wait is a year, remember, that COE will cost only $2! * It is defInItely wOrth it ! *
Assuming there are 600 Category A COEs up for bidding (I use only one category to simplify my model), 599 people must bid more than $2, and only one must bid $2.
The rest (just one person if there are only 601 bidders) must bid $1.
As an alternative, only 601 people need to bid in this round, and plus or minus 600 in the next round, based on the actual available COEs each time. In this case, only one person puts in the $1 bid and the other 600 can put in $2.
Come on, we can do it.
Just hold back on your need for a car this round.
It's worth it, for a $2 COE. Haha.
The writer is The Sunday Times' copyeditor.
Pasted from <http://www.cpf.gov.sg/imsavvy/infohub_article.asp?readid={533534806-6311-3618128299}> |
|
|
|
Good Post
Bad Post
|
x 0
x 0
|
Let’s do our bid for a $2 COE
|
Source:
|
The Sunday Times
|
Author:
|
Khoo How San
|
Sunday: 5th September 2010
Someone asked me:
Will you bid for a certificate of entitlement (COE) if you see your dream car beckoning from the showroom?
Then I had a dream.
I dreamt of snagging a $2 COE and dashing over to get my metallic object of desire.
Why a $2 COE?
It has happened before - on a day in November 2008.
True, it happened amid a banking crisis-sparked recession. The COE price for Category A cars (up to 1600cc) crashed to $2.
As my colleague Christopher Tan wryly pointed out: 'On the afternoon of the freak $2 result, those monitoring the tender noticed that a crash might be imminent. Hence they went in with ultra-low bids.
'It was a confluence of many aligned stars: the world economy was tanking, people were losing their jobs, salaries were being cut, and last but not least, COE supply was near its highest.
'Plus, the car 'population' had become very young after years of abundant COEs. Plus, many people were stuck with cars bought at high loans, and were not able to trade them in for new ones.'
In other words, car showrooms were empty and it was mostly individuals, not the dealers bidding on behalf of buyers, who put in bids that fateful November 2008 day.
Maybe it was because I had recently seen the movie Inception, but in my dream, people bought into the idea that they should do their own COE bidding, skipping the car dealers' package deal.
Hence, the $2 COE for Category A was replicable, without most of those underlying factors my colleague cited.
In my dream, I first 'entered' the mind of the person who devised the scheme, to grasp the fuel-injected mechanics of the COE system. He or she must have had a devilish sense of humour and understood Fallen Man.
This person created a bidding set-up that tantalised would-be car buyers with a minimum $1 bid price yet set the actual bid price at the sum Bidder X will pay. Simply put, Bidder X is the price setter.
He epitomises you and me, who desire a 'low' COE but will pay up for a 'high' COE simply because you and I have already made up our minds to buy a car, and we see others rushing to the showrooms (the best shorthand here is 'kiasuism', or fear of losing out).
In my dream, this kiasuism was expunged from our human nature.
Instead, a number of bidders were prepared to become what I shall call 'suckers'. But that is not a fair label, because these people did want a new car but were prepared to wait many months for it. They were 'public-spirited'.
Remember, it was a dream.
You can go to the Land Transport Authority's website on how COE bidding works, or you can Google 'how COE works' for simple yet accurate examples.
I'll use a simplified illustration myself.
Supposing there are 10 Category A COEs for the current bidding round. Technically, everyone - say, 20 bidders - can bid at $1. But there is no price setter to enable 10 bidders to secure the 10 COEs. All 20 have 'lost' and the 10 COEs go into the next bidding round.
Bidder X comes into being, in this example, if 10 people had bid only $1 and the 11th bidder had put down $2. He is the price setter. The 12th to 20th bidders, together with Bidder X, secure all 10 COEs.
These others (apart from Bidder X) had all bid more than $2. Bidder No. 20 can even bid $1 million or more and still get his COE at $2.
In fact, this kiasuism was understood by the devilish creator of the scheme, since a high bid ensures the bidder's success! It also, typically and across the board, ensures in the real world that COE prices are not freak $2 ones.
But should many be like the 20th bidder, and bid outrageously?
The ancient Chinese said, 'You may get what you wish for.' The $1 million sum may well become the price setter if bidders 1 to 10 bid from $1 to $999,999 and bidders 12 to 20 bid above $1 million.
If you have now truly grasped this Nobel Prize-worthy scheme, enter my dream world, and bid with me to get that $2 COE.
Indeed, and this is real, not from the dream, the LTA has been on our side, helping out by allowing real-time transparency. You can actually monitor the bids.
To repeat my dream scenario, individuals - not car dealers - did the bidding. Also, there were enough 'suckers' who bid $1 to enable Bidder X to set the price at $2. But who wants to be a sucker?
Think of it this way: Even with the current annual COE quotas, how many genuine car buyers will be thwarted from getting their new cars within a reasonable time?
Even if the wait is a year, remember, that COE will cost only $2! * It is defInItely wOrth it ! *
Assuming there are 600 Category A COEs up for bidding (I use only one category to simplify my model), 599 people must bid more than $2, and only one must bid $2.
The rest (just one person if there are only 601 bidders) must bid $1.
As an alternative, only 601 people need to bid in this round, and plus or minus 600 in the next round, based on the actual available COEs each time. In this case, only one person puts in the $1 bid and the other 600 can put in $2.
Come on, we can do it.
Just hold back on your need for a car this round.
It's worth it, for a $2 COE. Haha.
The writer is The Sunday Times' copyeditor.
Pasted from <http://www.cpf.gov.sg/imsavvy/infohub_article.asp?readid={533534806-6311-3618128299}>
|
|
Good Post
Bad Post
|
x 0
x 0
|
Let’s do our bid for a $2 COE
|
Source:
|
The Sunday Times
|
Author:
|
Khoo How San
|
Sunday: 5th September 2010
Someone asked me:
Will you bid for a certificate of entitlement (COE) if you see your dream car beckoning from the showroom?
Then I had a dream.
I dreamt of snagging a $2 COE and dashing over to get my metallic object of desire.
Why a $2 COE?
It has happened before - on a day in November 2008.
True, it happened amid a banking crisis-sparked recession. The COE price for Category A cars (up to 1600cc) crashed to $2.
As my colleague Christopher Tan wryly pointed out: 'On the afternoon of the freak $2 result, those monitoring the tender noticed that a crash might be imminent. Hence they went in with ultra-low bids.
'It was a confluence of many aligned stars: the world economy was tanking, people were losing their jobs, salaries were being cut, and last but not least, COE supply was near its highest.
'Plus, the car 'population' had become very young after years of abundant COEs. Plus, many people were stuck with cars bought at high loans, and were not able to trade them in for new ones.'
In other words, car showrooms were empty and it was mostly individuals, not the dealers bidding on behalf of buyers, who put in bids that fateful November 2008 day.
Maybe it was because I had recently seen the movie Inception, but in my dream, people bought into the idea that they should do their own COE bidding, skipping the car dealers' package deal.
Hence, the $2 COE for Category A was replicable, without most of those underlying factors my colleague cited.
In my dream, I first 'entered' the mind of the person who devised the scheme, to grasp the fuel-injected mechanics of the COE system. He or she must have had a devilish sense of humour and understood Fallen Man.
This person created a bidding set-up that tantalised would-be car buyers with a minimum $1 bid price yet set the actual bid price at the sum Bidder X will pay. Simply put, Bidder X is the price setter.
He epitomises you and me, who desire a 'low' COE but will pay up for a 'high' COE simply because you and I have already made up our minds to buy a car, and we see others rushing to the showrooms (the best shorthand here is 'kiasuism', or fear of losing out).
In my dream, this kiasuism was expunged from our human nature.
Instead, a number of bidders were prepared to become what I shall call 'suckers'. But that is not a fair label, because these people did want a new car but were prepared to wait many months for it. They were 'public-spirited'.
Remember, it was a dream.
You can go to the Land Transport Authority's website on how COE bidding works, or you can Google 'how COE works' for simple yet accurate examples.
I'll use a simplified illustration myself.
Supposing there are 10 Category A COEs for the current bidding round. Technically, everyone - say, 20 bidders - can bid at $1. But there is no price setter to enable 10 bidders to secure the 10 COEs. All 20 have 'lost' and the 10 COEs go into the next bidding round.
Bidder X comes into being, in this example, if 10 people had bid only $1 and the 11th bidder had put down $2. He is the price setter. The 12th to 20th bidders, together with Bidder X, secure all 10 COEs.
These others (apart from Bidder X) had all bid more than $2. Bidder No. 20 can even bid $1 million or more and still get his COE at $2.
In fact, this kiasuism was understood by the devilish creator of the scheme, since a high bid ensures the bidder's success! It also, typically and across the board, ensures in the real world that COE prices are not freak $2 ones.
But should many be like the 20th bidder, and bid outrageously?
The ancient Chinese said, 'You may get what you wish for.' The $1 million sum may well become the price setter if bidders 1 to 10 bid from $1 to $999,999 and bidders 12 to 20 bid above $1 million.
If you have now truly grasped this Nobel Prize-worthy scheme, enter my dream world, and bid with me to get that $2 COE.
Indeed, and this is real, not from the dream, the LTA has been on our side, helping out by allowing real-time transparency. You can actually monitor the bids.
To repeat my dream scenario, individuals - not car dealers - did the bidding. Also, there were enough 'suckers' who bid $1 to enable Bidder X to set the price at $2. But who wants to be a sucker?
Think of it this way: Even with the current annual COE quotas, how many genuine car buyers will be thwarted from getting their new cars within a reasonable time?
Even if the wait is a year, remember, that COE will cost only $2! * It is defInItely wOrth it ! *
Assuming there are 600 Category A COEs up for bidding (I use only one category to simplify my model), 599 people must bid more than $2, and only one must bid $2.
The rest (just one person if there are only 601 bidders) must bid $1.
As an alternative, only 601 people need to bid in this round, and plus or minus 600 in the next round, based on the actual available COEs each time. In this case, only one person puts in the $1 bid and the other 600 can put in $2.
Come on, we can do it.
Just hold back on your need for a car this round.
It's worth it, for a $2 COE. Haha.
The writer is The Sunday Times' copyeditor.
Pasted from <http://www.cpf.gov.sg/imsavvy/infohub_article.asp?readid={533534806-6311-3618128299}>
|
|
Good Post
Bad Post
|
x 0
x 0
|
Let’s do our bid for a $2 COE
|
Source:
|
The Sunday Times
|
Author:
|
Khoo How San
|
Sunday: 5th September 2010
Someone asked me:
Will you bid for a certificate of entitlement (COE) if you see your dream car beckoning from the showroom?
Then I had a dream.
I dreamt of snagging a $2 COE and dashing over to get my metallic object of desire.
Why a $2 COE?
It has happened before - on a day in November 2008.
True, it happened amid a banking crisis-sparked recession. The COE price for Category A cars (up to 1600cc) crashed to $2.
As my colleague Christopher Tan wryly pointed out: 'On the afternoon of the freak $2 result, those monitoring the tender noticed that a crash might be imminent. Hence they went in with ultra-low bids.
'It was a confluence of many aligned stars: the world economy was tanking, people were losing their jobs, salaries were being cut, and last but not least, COE supply was near its highest.
'Plus, the car 'population' had become very young after years of abundant COEs. Plus, many people were stuck with cars bought at high loans, and were not able to trade them in for new ones.'
In other words, car showrooms were empty and it was mostly individuals, not the dealers bidding on behalf of buyers, who put in bids that fateful November 2008 day.
Maybe it was because I had recently seen the movie Inception, but in my dream, people bought into the idea that they should do their own COE bidding, skipping the car dealers' package deal.
Hence, the $2 COE for Category A was replicable, without most of those underlying factors my colleague cited.
In my dream, I first 'entered' the mind of the person who devised the scheme, to grasp the fuel-injected mechanics of the COE system. He or she must have had a devilish sense of humour and understood Fallen Man.
This person created a bidding set-up that tantalised would-be car buyers with a minimum $1 bid price yet set the actual bid price at the sum Bidder X will pay. Simply put, Bidder X is the price setter.
He epitomises you and me, who desire a 'low' COE but will pay up for a 'high' COE simply because you and I have already made up our minds to buy a car, and we see others rushing to the showrooms (the best shorthand here is 'kiasuism', or fear of losing out).
In my dream, this kiasuism was expunged from our human nature.
Instead, a number of bidders were prepared to become what I shall call 'suckers'. But that is not a fair label, because these people did want a new car but were prepared to wait many months for it. They were 'public-spirited'.
Remember, it was a dream.
You can go to the Land Transport Authority's website on how COE bidding works, or you can Google 'how COE works' for simple yet accurate examples.
I'll use a simplified illustration myself.
Supposing there are 10 Category A COEs for the current bidding round. Technically, everyone - say, 20 bidders - can bid at $1. But there is no price setter to enable 10 bidders to secure the 10 COEs. All 20 have 'lost' and the 10 COEs go into the next bidding round.
Bidder X comes into being, in this example, if 10 people had bid only $1 and the 11th bidder had put down $2. He is the price setter. The 12th to 20th bidders, together with Bidder X, secure all 10 COEs.
These others (apart from Bidder X) had all bid more than $2. Bidder No. 20 can even bid $1 million or more and still get his COE at $2.
In fact, this kiasuism was understood by the devilish creator of the scheme, since a high bid ensures the bidder's success! It also, typically and across the board, ensures in the real world that COE prices are not freak $2 ones.
But should many be like the 20th bidder, and bid outrageously?
The ancient Chinese said, 'You may get what you wish for.' The $1 million sum may well become the price setter if bidders 1 to 10 bid from $1 to $999,999 and bidders 12 to 20 bid above $1 million.
If you have now truly grasped this Nobel Prize-worthy scheme, enter my dream world, and bid with me to get that $2 COE.
Indeed, and this is real, not from the dream, the LTA has been on our side, helping out by allowing real-time transparency. You can actually monitor the bids.
To repeat my dream scenario, individuals - not car dealers - did the bidding. Also, there were enough 'suckers' who bid $1 to enable Bidder X to set the price at $2. But who wants to be a sucker?
Think of it this way: Even with the current annual COE quotas, how many genuine car buyers will be thwarted from getting their new cars within a reasonable time?
Even if the wait is a year, remember, that COE will cost only $2! * It is defInItely wOrth it ! *
Assuming there are 600 Category A COEs up for bidding (I use only one category to simplify my model), 599 people must bid more than $2, and only one must bid $2.
The rest (just one person if there are only 601 bidders) must bid $1.
As an alternative, only 601 people need to bid in this round, and plus or minus 600 in the next round, based on the actual available COEs each time. In this case, only one person puts in the $1 bid and the other 600 can put in $2.
Come on, we can do it.
Just hold back on your need for a car this round.
It's worth it, for a $2 COE. Haha.
The writer is The Sunday Times' copyeditor.
Pasted from <http://www.cpf.gov.sg/imsavvy/infohub_article.asp?readid={533534806-6311-3618128299}>
|
|
Good Post
Bad Post
|
x 0
x 0
|
Feeling lost, depressed and lonely while jobless? Email gilbert@transitioning.org if you need to access our free volunteer career coaching or counselling services. Don't suffer alone, seek help! Thanks for visiting!
Sep 4, 2010
Past 62, you take the job you can do
In an e-mail interview with Insight, MM Lee Kuan Yew elaborates on his views on work and retirement
When you said ‘there should be no retirement age’, did you mean it metaphorically – that people should continue to be productive in their old age, or did you mean that the official retirement age should be scrapped?
I do not mean just metaphorically. As long as people are productive, however old they are, if they have something to do, it is better to semi-retire. If they refuse a job, that is up to them. Employment after retirement age has to be for lower pay and lighter work. How much is a matter which has to be decided in accordance with the requirements of the job they are doing and their physical or mental alertness.This is too radical a change in one step. I have persuaded the Prime Minister and my Cabinet colleagues to introduce re-employment in gradual steps. First, from 62 to 65, and then to 67. After that, case by case for employer and employee.
Should it be applied to the entire workforce, or only to the top-tier talent and the middle-management and professional ranks?
It should apply to the entire workforce, not just to top-tier talent or middle management and professional ranks. If a man is physically fit and can still do his work, he should be allowed to do so.If he cannot do hard physical work, then find him a job in the service and leisure industries, lighter work which he can do but keeps him occupied and earning a living. So his CPF (Central Provident Fund) and other savings will not be the only money he will have.
The new British government plans to phase out its default retirement age of 65. According to a White Paper, an employer can fire someone on the basis of age only after the employee is administered a ‘capability test’ and fails it. Businesses complain of administrative costs, but older workers welcome it. Is this feasible in Singapore?
The British government is moving in one big step. We should go step by step, to allow employers and employees time to adjust. First, from 62 to 65, then to 67. It will take several years.
Do you see the Civil Service taking the lead in re-employment? Would it impinge on the Public Sector Leadership (PSL) scheme, which places limits on how long top civil servants can serve in key posts? At more junior levels, how would the Civil Service ensure it does not become bloated? Should employment be on the basis of term contracts rather than permanent?
Yes, the Civil Service is taking the lead. The Public Service Division tells me that in 2009, it offered re-employment to nine out of 10 officers who retired at 62.The PSLs will step down from their top jobs when their terms are up in order to have flow-through and leadership renewal at the top of the public service. This allows younger officers to take on responsibilities when they are ready, and keeps the service energetic and connected with new trends.When officers reach the end of their PSL terms or 62, and provided they can still contribute, they move sideways or to less demanding jobs in the ministries or statutory boards where their experience and abilities are put to good use.At junior levels, the key is to keep refreshing and upgrading their skills so that they continue to contribute even past 62. They have to be on term contracts because it must depend on their health, once they are past official retirement age. Workers will be very concerned if there is no official retirement age, as it could mean that employers are freer to hire and fire
It does not mean employers are free to hire and fire just because there is no official retirement age.
You said that working will keep people ‘interested and engaged in life’ into their old age. Does this apply only to the well-educated, high-income executives? What about the lower-skilled and lower-wage elderly? They may want to work past retirement age out of necessity rather than to keep interested and engaged.
The lower-skilled and lower-wage elderly have to be kept engaged, and earning an income. They could move from heavy manual labour to lighter work in the service and leisure industries at counters or the backend of the hotel and leisure business, or in restaurants and retail outlets. For big functions, the hotels hire students from the polys, the ITEs (Institutes of Technical Education) and universities. They can do these jobs. It is up to them if they want to retire.
There are jobs where the specialised nature and physical demands require an age cut-off, for example, pilots, divers, policemen, army officers. If there is no retirement age, how can workers in such jobs be redeployed?
For jobs that require special physical attributes like pilots, divers, policemen and army officers, there has to be a retirement age. Extended employment should be based on their physical fitness.They should be given the option to continue if they are fit, as indeed pilots do have. So do policemen. The Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) needs its leadership corps of officers to be physically and mentally vigorous. Hence, they need a flow-through of young officers.SAF officers complete their military career in their 40s, but they have not retired from work. Some move on to less physically demanding jobs in Mindef where they put their experience to good use, while others go on to successful second careers in other ministries or in the private sector.
Many older workers want to retire because they would rather not suffer the ‘humiliation’ of getting less pay or having to follow the orders of those younger than them. Is this a ‘mindset’ that can be remedied?
Those who feel humiliated or get less pay because they are demoted and have to follow the orders of younger men, can move to some other new sector where the young officers are not their former subordinates.When you reach retirement age, you have to take the job that you can do. I moved from prime minister to senior minister under prime minister Goh Chok Tong. Now I am Minister Mentor under, first, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and, second, Senior Minister Goh. As long as I am fit, if the next prime minister wants to retain me because I am still capable, I am prepared to go down in status. It makes little difference to me and my amour propre.
Some Singaporeans disagree with your view that they should not retire but keep on working. They argue that the end of life is a happy retirement, not more work.
Those who want to engage in new pursuits and develop interests which they could not do so because of work, can do so. They will have no income and may run out of their savings and CPF monies earlier.
ShareThis
|
|
Good Post
Bad Post
|
x 0
x 0
|
|
|
Good Post
Bad Post
|
x 0
x 0
|
|
|
Good Post
Bad Post
|
x 0
x 0
|
Sustainable transport options
howard shaw
As our community grows, and our personal needs grow in a society that is still dominated by material goods and getting more out of every hour of every day, we are learning even more about our effects on the environment, and it is disturbing to all of us.
The writer is the executive director of the Singapore Environment Council (SEC).
The Singapore G1 green event is supported by
Members of the public can head down to the Float @ Marina Bay on Sept 19, between 2pm and 8pm to watch Asia’s first Soap Box Derby.
For more information, please visit www. singaporeg1.sg or call SEC on 6337 6062. Today as part of the newspaper’s 10th anniversary celebrations.
When thinking about alternative modes of transportation, various options need to be taken into consideration.
Do we really need a personal car?
In a small island state like Singapore, the answer is no.
Yet most people who own a car would claim that their main motive is for convenience.
This raises a different question:
What can be done to improve convenience and encourage the population to rely more on public and alternative modes of transportation?
There are several improvements which could be made in Singapore to have people adopt more sustainable modes of transportation.
First of all, the public transport system is fast reaching saturation point. As the population increases, the public transport network must keep up at the same rate.
A lot of effort can be put into improving the network by expanding the number of routes and increasing the frequency of buses and MRT trains. Many people own a car for the simple reason that the area they live in or want to access is not serviced or easily accessible by public transport.
The bicycle and pedestrian tracks remain undeveloped in Singapore. It remains difficult to go from point A to B without having to ride along the busy roads. A lot of effort could therefore be invested into developing a proper network of safe tracks for bicycles and pedestrians.
The cost of buying a hybrid vehicle remains much higher than that of a normal car. In order to have people purchase this type of vehicle which have lesser emissions, the government would need to provide a range of incentives.
Electric vehicles have recently been introduced to Singapore, and they have the advantage of having zero emissions during their usage. However, we must keep in mind that almost all of the energy in Singapore is derived from the burning of fossil fuel from natural gas. Therefore, in order for such cars to have a positive impact on reducing emissions, the energy grid powering these cars would need to be from a sustainable source (for example, solar or wind).
From the angle of transport for our daily activities, we could look at the necessity of most people needing to move twice a day in order to get to and from work. As society is changing, so should our daily behaviours. An increasing number of companies in Europe and North America adopt a work from home concept. Employees are no longer required to physically be at the office for work but are assessed on work output and deliverables which can all be done from home. Such a model applied on a large scale can have very significant impacts on reducing unnecessary transportation.
The end message is this:
In order to make significant changes in mitigating emissions from the transportation sector, we would need to rethink our daily behaviour and activities.
Last but not least, a lot of effort can be done to raise awareness on the need to shift to sustainable modes of transportation and highlight the issue of global warming.
The Singapore Environment Council (SEC) believes in education and outreach to the public on such issues and is organising the Singapore G1 for this reason. The Singapore G1 is an event featuring races like the Soap Box Derby, Eco Car Race, Buggy Race, Trishaw Race and other activities like walking and cycling.
SEC aims to raise awareness and encourage the development and use of green technologies in transportation, and more cost-effective modes of transportation like public transport. At the same time, Singapore G1 promotes simple lifestyle changes like walking and cycling.
|
|
Good Post
Bad Post
|
x 0
x 0
|
China ‘sweet spot’ is returning
Stephen Green
To understand what is going on with China’s economy, just look at wheel loaders.
Roaming Bears
In April, the State Council launched a spectacular attack on real-estate speculation.
Steel prices fell, China-related equities sold off, and we even saw some hedge funds take aggressive short yuan positions in the non-deliverable forward space.
The China bears were roaming.
Now there are indications the economy has come out of this four-month policy induced slide. Apart from those wheel loader sales, the Purchasing Managers’ Index stood at a seasonally adjusted 53.4 last month, steady on the previous month, according to Standard Chartered estimates.
New orders reached 56.4, suggesting there is more growth to come.
Other signs of renewed dynamism include upticks in apartment and car sales.
Floor space sold in 11 smaller cities is almost back to levels seen before the April measures.
The bears will cry that this is the calm before the storm.
We know a wave of new apartments will hit the market this month to next month. This will trigger price declines as developers compete to shift inventory.
Property investment, making up about a third of all investment, should then slow.
US slowdown
At the same time, the recovery in the United States is probably over.
Standard Chartered predicts the US economy will grow only 0.5 per cent in the fourth quarter and in the first three months of next year. China will struggle to boost its exports to North America in this period by more than 3 per cent.
This will, of course, drag on China’s growth. But with momentum looking healthy, there is no reason for major concern.
There are some who still anticipate accelerating inflation. Yet manufactured good prices are under control, while the cost of meat and oil is stable even though grain prices have soared.
As long as inflation is contained, the Chinese government may loosen policy by year’s end and approve more infrastructure projects. It will probably allow the banks to lend more freely.
Bumper fiscal revenue piled up in the Finance Ministry’s bank account in the first half and is crying out to be spent, possibly on low-income housing, education and health care.
Assuming that apartment prices drop in the next two months, the ministry could also afford to loosen its housing measures a bit.
In short, we may well be in for a miniature re-run of the fourth quarter of 2008.
Back then, a collapsing US economy sent panic through most markets. The only dynamic place in the world with the policy dial turned towards stimulus was China.
Investors are presented with a call:
Will the negative fallout from a decelerating US wipe out all risk appetite?
Or will investors bet again that there is enough right with China to support higher valuations on the commodities the nation consumes and on the companies operating there?
With the Federal Reserve on hold and probably introducing more quantitative easing, it won’t take much to push money in this direction.
If this is the case, China will soon hit another of its sweet spots, with an economy that is neither too hot nor too cold.
They don’t come along too often these days, so don’t let it go to waste.
Bloomberg
Stephen Green is the head of China research at Standard Chartered in Shanghai. The opinions expressed are his own.
They are tractors with a big shovel on the front to pick up and move earth or coal.
Such machines are used to build roads and railways or to dig black stuff out of shallow mines.
China is, as we all know, an investment-heavy economy, so wheel-loader sales are a pretty good leading indicator:
Companies only buy them if they plan to use one over the next 24 months.
In July, 15,823 new loaders rolled out of the showrooms. That represented a 50-percent increase in seasonally adjusted sales compared with a year earlier.
This is hardly the kind of number that one would expect from an economy on the verge of collapse. Instead it is only one of many signs that Chinese gross domestic product is steadily expanding while inflationary pressures have moderated. In short, figures for last month may well be what we have all been waiting for: A China sweet spot.
This year, officials in Beijing have been trying to cool an over-stimulated economy.
And from March through June, it looked like the government was achieving just that.
The bureaucrats approved fewer new infrastructure projects. The banks were given loan quotas and told that all the loans they had extended last year were, yes, actually meant to be paid back.
|
|
Good Post
Bad Post
|
x 0
x 0
|
|
|
Good Post
Bad Post
|
x 0
x 0
|
‘I know you never liked me, Mr Sec-Gen. Well, I never liked you either’
BEIJING
Mr Sha Zukang (picture), the UN Under-Secretary-General for economic and social affairs, did not pull punches in a toast at a dinner in Alpbach attended by UN top brass,
“I know you never liked me, Mr Secretary-General. Well, I never liked you either,” the official quoted Mr Sha as saying in a toast to Mr Ban.
He said Mr Ban had been “trying to get rid” of him and could fire him “anytime”.
“I didn’t want to come to New York.
It was the last thing I wanted to do,”
Mr Sha reportedly said, before tempering his speech with some positive words about the UN chief and his persistence.
“I’ve come to love the UN and I’m coming to admire some things about you,” said the Chinese career diplomat.
He also singled out a US colleague for criticism, saying: “I really don’t like Americans.”
Mr Sha, who took up his UN post in July 2007, apologised the following day for his outburst and then maintained a low profile at the retreat, the report said. — The most senior Chinese diplomat at the United Nations reportedly delivered a drunken rant last week against his boss, Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon, and Americans at a retreat in Austria.Foreign Policy magazine reported on its website, citing a senior UN official who attended the event.AFP
|
|
Good Post
Bad Post
|
x 0
x 0
|
I know you never liked me.
Well, I never liked you either.
|
|
Good Post
Bad Post
|
x 0
x 0
|
Stock Calls
Otto Marine
Underperform | 37 cents
CIMB downgrades from “Outperform” and cuts the target price to 30 cents from 48 cents after lowering the FY11-12 earnings estimates by 31 and 23 per cent, respectively. The changes reflect the risk of more order cancellations by Mosvold, which accounts for 45 per cent of the shipbuilder’s order book. The house notes Mosvold’s cancellation of its first anchor handling, towing and supply order dragged down Otto’s share price in April, adding “we see cancellation risks in December 2010 and June 2011.”
It notes Mosvold was set up during offshore and marine boom in 2007 as a “pure and highly leveraged” vehicle to own, operate highend, large AHTS vessels. It adds that “with its vessels under construction, Mosvold is not generating any operating cash flow”.
|
|
Good Post
Bad Post
|
x 0
x 0
|
Russian opportunity for Singapore
Jo-ann Huang
joannhuang@mediacorp.com.sg
SINGAPORE
That is up by 50 per cent on-year and both sides want to strengthen business links further.
The Russian-Singapore Business Forum on Sept 26 to 29 is expected to focus on investment opportunities in the state of Tatarstan, which is a two-and-half-hour flight from Moscow.
The oil-rich Tatarstan city of Kazan, with a population of 1.2 million, has a burgeoning middle-class but is lacking in hospitality, health care and education services.
And one local company, Sourcelink, aims to help transform Kazan into a medical tourism hub.
It is building a US$150 million ($201 million) mixed-development medical facility there that it is slated for completion in two-and-a-half years.
Sourcelink has been operating in Russia for four years and is well established in Vladivostok, in far eastern Russia.
The forum organisers say Tatarstan’s business-friendly policies and lower costs compared to more established Russian cities should attract more Singapore companies.
Still, foreign investors face some challenges.
“One of Russia’s problems is red tape and bureaucracy. If a region can offer to cut some of these for foreign investors, I think that is a great opportunity,” said Mr Michael Tay, executive director of the Russia-Singapore Business Forum. — Despite uncertainties in the global economy, Singapore’s bilateral trade with Russia hit some $3 billion in the first half of this year.
|
|
Good Post
Bad Post
|
x 0
x 0
|
GIC unit’s $4.02 billion IPO set for Oct 15: Source
Global Logistic Properties, a real estate unit of the Government of Singapore Investment Corp, is expected to list on the Singapore Exchange on Oct 15 in an initial public offering that could raise up to US $3 billion ($4.02 billion), a person familiar with the transaction said yesterday.
If it goes ahead, the IPO would be the biggest in Singapore since SingTel listed in 1993 and raised $4 billion in three tranches. It would also dwarf CapitaMalls Asia’s US $2 billion IPO launched last year.
Investor roadshows for the deal will commence on Sept 23, with pricing expected on Oct 8.
The deal is expected to be split into a 95-per-cent global tranche and a 5-per-cent Singapore tranche, the source said.
The proceeds of the IPO will be used to support growth in China and Japan, pay down existing loans and for general working capital purposes, the source said.
A number of other large Singapore IPOs are expected to hit the market in coming months, including a $1 billion IPO planned by Mapletree Industrial Real Estate Investment Trust, a unit linked to Temasek Holdings.
China-based New Century Shipbuilding is also said to be exploring the possibility of a $700 million IPO this year.
Dow Jones
Jackpot2010 ( Date: 09-Sep-2010 11:07) Posted:
|
|
|
Good Post
Bad Post
|
x 0
x 0
|
GIC unit’s $4.02 billion IPO set for Oct 15: Source
Global Logistic Properties, a real estate unit of the Government of Singapore Investment Corp, is expected to list on the Singapore Exchange on Oct 15 in an initial public offering that could raise up to US $3 billion ($4.02 billion), a person familiar with the transaction said yesterday.
If it goes ahead, the IPO would be the biggest in Singapore since SingTel listed in 1993 and raised $4 billion in three tranches. It would also dwarf CapitaMalls Asia’s US $2 billion IPO launched last year.
Investor roadshows for the deal will commence on Sept 23, with pricing expected on Oct 8.
The deal is expected to be split into a 95-per-cent global tranche and a 5-per-cent Singapore tranche, the source said.
The proceeds of the IPO will be used to support growth in China and Japan, pay down existing loans and for general working capital purposes, the source said.
A number of other large Singapore IPOs are expected to hit the market in coming months, including a $1 billion IPO planned by Mapletree Industrial Real Estate Investment Trust, a unit linked to Temasek Holdings.
China-based New Century Shipbuilding is also said to be exploring the possibility of a $700 million IPO this year.
Dow Jones
|
|
Good Post
Bad Post
|
x 0
x 0
|
GIC unit’s $4.02 billion IPO set for Oct 15: Source
Global Logistic Properties, a real estate unit of the Government of Singapore Investment Corp, is expected to list on the Singapore Exchange on Oct 15 in an initial public offering that could raise up to US $3 billion ($4.02 billion), a person familiar with the transaction said yesterday.
If it goes ahead, the IPO would be the biggest in Singapore since SingTel listed in 1993 and raised $4 billion in three tranches. It would also dwarf CapitaMalls Asia’s US $2 billion IPO launched last year.
Investor roadshows for the deal will commence on Sept 23, with pricing expected on Oct 8.
The deal is expected to be split into a 95-per-cent global tranche and a 5-per-cent Singapore tranche, the source said.
The proceeds of the IPO will be used to support growth in China and Japan, pay down existing loans and for general working capital purposes, the source said.
A number of other large Singapore IPOs are expected to hit the market in coming months, including a $1 billion IPO planned by Mapletree Industrial Real Estate Investment Trust, a unit linked to Temasek Holdings.
China-based New Century Shipbuilding is also said to be exploring the possibility of a $700 million IPO this year.
Dow Jones
pharoah88 ( Date: 10-Sep-2010 11:06) Posted:
|
JAPAN properties are in DEPRESSED STATE
cannOt recOver
as lOng as
YEN is hIgh
and Interest Is near ZERO
pharoah88 ( Date: 09-Sep-2010 14:35) Posted:
Thursday: 9 SEPTEMBER 2010 HARI RAYA EVE
CNA mOrnIng eVent
GLOBAL PROPERTY OUTLOOK
WORLD properties are still under water eXcept for bOth Singapore and Hong Kong
American dIstressed propertIes are getting mOre dIstressed
European properties still see no light
UK properties are in deep trouble
China property cOOlIng measures wIll cOntInue
Singapore properties has nO mOre Upside in the near term |
|
|
|
|
|
Good Post
Bad Post
|
|
|
|
