JP Morgan announced agreement to merge with Chase which agreed to pay US$60 billion to exchange about 3.7 Chase shares for each Morgan share. Each Chase share was valued at about US$50 and Morgan share about US$180. There has been a lot of rumours and talks about impending buyout of Morgan for the last 2 years. It has finally happened and was the talk of every staff in Morgan.
That was what happened one day that first week in our pantry among some of our staff from the human resource department when I went there to top up my cup. I could not avoid joining in the most important topic for the week and asked them what the sentiments were in their department. One of the HR staff responded that they were not worried. When I asked why that was so since there were talks about impending cuts in staffing by about 3,000 world wide, she said that it was because 'Morgan is the best' and looked at me quizically as if saying that I should know that.
When I asked her why she thought Morgan was the best, she said 'everyone knows it'. So I insisted on getting some proof which was duly given : Morgan's stock price was $180 while Chase's was only $50! I was shocked and proceeded to explain to her that it was an incorrect conclusion and gave her the example that my having $50 dollar notes in my wallet while another person having only $10 notes in his does not mean that I am richer. I may have only 1 $50 note but the other guy may have a thousand $10 notes!
The HR lady understood my point and the conversation ended there. I thought to myself what would happen if that lady had quoted that to potential recruits of Morgan as example for why 'Morgan is the best'! It would be the fastest way the disprove that statement.
Friday, September 29, 2000
Friday, September 15, 2000
History of American Folksongs
Old Folks At Home, Old Kentucky Home & Old Black Joe
The songs were classified as "Ethiopian Melodies". When once Stephen Foster devoted his life to song writing, the talent developed into a rare one. Old Folks at Home was written in 1852 and was one of the three which were written in that year. It also proved to be one of the big and lasting hits and it's publishers, Firth, Pond & Co., of New York, realized much on it. It is a typical negro minstrel song and was, of course, sung by the Christy Minstrels. This song followed in the footsteps of such other favorites as Uncle Ned, Nelly Was A Lady, Open Thy Lattice, Love; Suwanee River, O Susanna, Laura Lee, Wilt Thou Be Gone Love, I Would Not Die In Summer Time and many others. It is reproduced here to show that there is truth in the statement that most of Foster's lyrics were as original with him as were his melodies.
"As I once intimated to you, I had the intention of omitting my name on my Ethiopian songs, owing to the prejudice against them by some, which might injure my reputation as a writer of another style of music, but I find that by my efforts I have done a great deal to build up a taste for the Ethiopian songs among refined people by making the words suitable to their taste, instead of the trashy and really offensive words which belong to some of that order. Therefore I have concluded to reinstate my name on my songs and to pursue the Ethiopian business without fear or shame and lend all my energies to making the business live, at the same time that I will wish to establish my name as the best Ethiopian song-writer. But I am not encouraged in undertaking this so long as "The Old Folks At Home" stares me in the face with another's name on it. As it was at my own solicitation that you allowed your name to be placed on the song, I hope that the above reasons will be sufficient explanation for my desire to place my own name on it as author and composer, while at the same time I wish to leave the name of your band on the title page. This is a little matter of pride in myself which it will certainly be to your interest to encourage. On the receipt of your free consent to this proposition, I will, if you wish, willingly refund you the money which you paid me on that song, though it may have been sent me for other considerations than the one in question, and I promise in addition to write you an opening chorus in my best style, free of charge, and in any other way in my power to advance your interest hereafter. I find I cannot write at all unless I write for public approbation and get credit for what I write. As we may probably have a good deal of business with each other in our lives, it is best to proceed on a sure basis of confidence and good understanding, therefore I hope you will appreciate an author's feelings in the case and deal with me with your usual fairness. Please answer immediately. Very respectfully yours, Stephen C. Foster."
It is ironic that the only race that developed a folksong literature in this country is the race that was brought here against it's will, and was and has been the most brutally exploited of all-the Negro. The Negro spirituals and Stephen Foster's songs are the nearest to completely indigenous folksongs that we possess. - Deems Taylor
The songs were classified as "Ethiopian Melodies". When once Stephen Foster devoted his life to song writing, the talent developed into a rare one. Old Folks at Home was written in 1852 and was one of the three which were written in that year. It also proved to be one of the big and lasting hits and it's publishers, Firth, Pond & Co., of New York, realized much on it. It is a typical negro minstrel song and was, of course, sung by the Christy Minstrels. This song followed in the footsteps of such other favorites as Uncle Ned, Nelly Was A Lady, Open Thy Lattice, Love; Suwanee River, O Susanna, Laura Lee, Wilt Thou Be Gone Love, I Would Not Die In Summer Time and many others. It is reproduced here to show that there is truth in the statement that most of Foster's lyrics were as original with him as were his melodies.
"As I once intimated to you, I had the intention of omitting my name on my Ethiopian songs, owing to the prejudice against them by some, which might injure my reputation as a writer of another style of music, but I find that by my efforts I have done a great deal to build up a taste for the Ethiopian songs among refined people by making the words suitable to their taste, instead of the trashy and really offensive words which belong to some of that order. Therefore I have concluded to reinstate my name on my songs and to pursue the Ethiopian business without fear or shame and lend all my energies to making the business live, at the same time that I will wish to establish my name as the best Ethiopian song-writer. But I am not encouraged in undertaking this so long as "The Old Folks At Home" stares me in the face with another's name on it. As it was at my own solicitation that you allowed your name to be placed on the song, I hope that the above reasons will be sufficient explanation for my desire to place my own name on it as author and composer, while at the same time I wish to leave the name of your band on the title page. This is a little matter of pride in myself which it will certainly be to your interest to encourage. On the receipt of your free consent to this proposition, I will, if you wish, willingly refund you the money which you paid me on that song, though it may have been sent me for other considerations than the one in question, and I promise in addition to write you an opening chorus in my best style, free of charge, and in any other way in my power to advance your interest hereafter. I find I cannot write at all unless I write for public approbation and get credit for what I write. As we may probably have a good deal of business with each other in our lives, it is best to proceed on a sure basis of confidence and good understanding, therefore I hope you will appreciate an author's feelings in the case and deal with me with your usual fairness. Please answer immediately. Very respectfully yours, Stephen C. Foster."
It is ironic that the only race that developed a folksong literature in this country is the race that was brought here against it's will, and was and has been the most brutally exploited of all-the Negro. The Negro spirituals and Stephen Foster's songs are the nearest to completely indigenous folksongs that we possess. - Deems Taylor
Monday, September 11, 2000
Street Peddlar and Big Business
For the last 3 years or so, an Indonesian man from Batam has been selling his curry puffs at 3 pieces for a dollar at various places around the new SIA building. Before completion of the SIA Building, he started by selling his puffs right at the back exit of DBS Tower 2. It was a pretty good location that captures the traffic going into DBS Tower 2. I like many other people around the office find this convenient and cheap supplier a welcome.
When SIA Building opened it has a small mamak shop (provision shop run by Indian families common in Singapore) at its back exit that faces that of DBS Tower 2. It also sold snacks like nasi lemak, fried mee hoon and, of course, curry puffs. I guess the Indonesian peddlar must have either found that he was losing some customers to the Indian shop or was chased away by the DBS building management. For awhile after that he moved his operations to a spot right in between SIA Building and CPF Building. It was also a better location since it was right in the middle of traffic moving from the Tanjong Pagar MRT station to the various buildings near SIA Building. That continued until the week Starbucks opened its coffee outlet in the ground floor of SIA Building. The peddlar disappeared the week Starbucks appeared. Initially I was not sure if Starbucks was the cause as the peddlar might have been ill. But he never appeared again at that spot.
A few months later, while driving into the CPF carpark I caught sight of the Indonesian man again. This time he was selling his puffs at the other end of CPF Building, nearer to the traffic lights (and away from SIA Building). But I did not see him again subsequent to that. Still wondering where he has gone.
This little episode of this poor but resourceful Indonesian peddlar sticks in my mind for a few reasons :
- circumstantial evidence showed that he was probably chased away as part of the deal between SIA Building and Starbucks. I have always wanted to catch hold of the peddlar to confirm this but never got to do it. And if that is the case, it shows what big businesses are capable of. Even a small time peddlar was not given a chance. For me, it increases my commitment not to ever buy anything from Starbucks and SIA.
- it also shows the odds which smaller businesses have to go against.
When SIA Building opened it has a small mamak shop (provision shop run by Indian families common in Singapore) at its back exit that faces that of DBS Tower 2. It also sold snacks like nasi lemak, fried mee hoon and, of course, curry puffs. I guess the Indonesian peddlar must have either found that he was losing some customers to the Indian shop or was chased away by the DBS building management. For awhile after that he moved his operations to a spot right in between SIA Building and CPF Building. It was also a better location since it was right in the middle of traffic moving from the Tanjong Pagar MRT station to the various buildings near SIA Building. That continued until the week Starbucks opened its coffee outlet in the ground floor of SIA Building. The peddlar disappeared the week Starbucks appeared. Initially I was not sure if Starbucks was the cause as the peddlar might have been ill. But he never appeared again at that spot.
A few months later, while driving into the CPF carpark I caught sight of the Indonesian man again. This time he was selling his puffs at the other end of CPF Building, nearer to the traffic lights (and away from SIA Building). But I did not see him again subsequent to that. Still wondering where he has gone.
This little episode of this poor but resourceful Indonesian peddlar sticks in my mind for a few reasons :
- circumstantial evidence showed that he was probably chased away as part of the deal between SIA Building and Starbucks. I have always wanted to catch hold of the peddlar to confirm this but never got to do it. And if that is the case, it shows what big businesses are capable of. Even a small time peddlar was not given a chance. For me, it increases my commitment not to ever buy anything from Starbucks and SIA.
- it also shows the odds which smaller businesses have to go against.
Friday, September 08, 2000
If He Can Write, So Can I
In the last couple of years of my work in JP Morgan, I subscribed to a daily internal Morgan publication which provides daily excerpts on various technology topics from various sources. These mails always had a 'Quote of the Day', and along with each topic, the 'editor' would provide his 'comments'. Over time I found these editor's comments a bit disturbing and decided to respond to some of the writings on topics that I was more familiar with. I figured if some Morgan staff can write, so can I! Below is an example of one of the exchanges.
From: Arthur Iger on 09/05/2000 09:24 AM EDT
To: Technology Industry Daily Recipients
Subject: Technology Industry Daily - Tuesday September 5, 2000
J.P. Morgan, LabMorgan
Tuesday September 5, 2000
Volume 4, Number 156
Internet economy drives liberalization in Singapore
In a clear departure from it state-control approach to commerce, Singapore’s deputy prime minister signaled yesterday that country was adopting a more laissez-faire attitude, IDG News reported. "From now on, everything is allowed in business in Singapore unless it is specifically banned; previously, what was not explicitly allowed was generally regarded as banned," said Singapore's Deputy Prime Minister Tony Tan. "The world economy and the way businesses are run are being transformed by the triple driving forces of technological innovation, globalization, and liberalization. Under the onslaught of these forces, old paradigms are being examined and new paradigms are being thrown up almost by the day. People will continue to be a critical resource in the new economic phase we are moving into."
IDG News quoted Tan’s remarks from an official transcript of a speech given Friday to honor successful technology entrepreneurs in Singapore. As an example of the government’s liberalization, Tan pointed to Singapore’s easing of bankruptcy laws to make them less intimidating for small companies and potential technopreneurs. The government is also making it easier for foreign IT experts and technopreneurs to work in Singapore, Tan said.
Editor's Comments:
This appears to be a real sea change on the part of the government of Singapore. Previously, some observers saw Singapore as a government, which was heavy handed in the areas of civil liberties. While, the government's move is far short of a "Bill of Rights" for Singapore citizens, it's a bow to the belief that greater personal freedom is linked both to creativity and to making Singapore an attractive environment for the people-driven technologies of the future.
China has looked to Singapore as a model for how to achieve significant development without the need for an evolved environment of personal freedom. The hope is that China will continue to choose to follow Singapore's lead in this area as well.
Quote for the day:
"Reading is being the arm and being the axe and being the skull; reading is giving up, not holding yourself at a distance and jeering."
- J.M. Coetzee, The Master of Petersburg
Arthur Iger
New York, NY 10260
(212) 235-0504
iger_arthur@jpmorgan.com
Chee-Khiaw Cheng
09/08/00 05:34 AM
To: Arthur Iger@JPMORGAN
Subject: FEEDBACK: Technology Industry Daily - Tuesday September 5, 2000
Hi Arthur,
Feedback on the Editor's Comment on the article on Liberalization in Singapore.
I am quite amazed by the editor's re-interpretation of the Singapore minister's comments as reported by IDG News relating to how it and the country should approach the issues of :
- interpreting regulations in light of the fast changing & competitive nature of the new economy
- bankruptcy laws and its relationship to discouraging enterpreneurs
- attracting more foreign talents and enterpreneurs
The Editor on its part has chosen to change Singapore's proactive attempt to address those issues that all governments in the world currently faces (except that Singapore does it faster & better than many governments in this world) to one of civil liberty and imply that that was the origin of the minister's comments.
My comments are as follows :
- I am a foreigner who has been living in Singapore for the last 15 years and has not encountered any incident where my civil liberties were restricted. In fact I find Singapore a place where I can safely and confidently do anything I wish anytime of the day AND NIGHT as long as I do not infringe on the liberties of someone else. That does not exist in even New York.
- there are a number of Americans that have personally told me that they prefer living in Singapore to the US for exactly the same reasons.
- We have many western expatriates within JP Morgan including Americans that hang on to staying in Singapore instead of returning home - something hardly sensible for 'free Americans' if their civil liberties are not protected.
- 1 in 5 people in Singapore is a foreigner. From all over the world, they are here to make a better future for their family. That is a much higher ratio than Britain, Japan or Germany.
- never has there been an incident where Singapore tried (as the US tried so hard to do) to make accusation stick to one of its citizen for espionage for a foreign country like that of Lee Wen Ho
- never has any significant group of citizenry of Singapore publicly (for they can do so anywhere on earth) has accused Singapore of racial or sexual discrimination let alone limiting their civil rights. The US has all of those issues since its inception to today.
- no country in this world which was an ex-colony exploited by Britain for 300 years could have achieved for its people the same living standard as Britain in its 30 short yrs of existence if its people's liberties were highly restricted.
- no government as honest as this one who publicly recognises those new challenges of the new economy and takes conscious steps to keep its people relevant (as it did for 30 yrs) as one of the most competitive in the world can do so in a repressive environment.
I follow this publication daily with a great degree of trust and expectation that the comments provide an objective analysis on a subject. Obviously that requires the commentator to be well informed on the subject - something I do not expect one person to have but has so far assumed that fair due diligence has been performed. Otherwise, I expect forthrightness in abstention.
In this case where I have first hand experience on the country commented on, I have a good basis to perform a reality check on the comments. Me and a few readers here in Singapore can only conclude that the comments arose out of ignorance. Ignorance by itself & unaware is not an issue unless it contributes to dis-information. Then it will be a disfavour to its readership and the credibility of the publication.
By the way, the Singapore government do believe that liberty does not mean license to do things with irresponsibility and impunity, and conducts itself accordingly. Many irresponsible people see that as heavy handedness.
Rgds
CCK
p.s. Do leave China out of this. I'm very confident that the Editor has zero or little knowledge on the realities and history of China to make a fair comment on it. If they are so terrible, they will fail and the West will be ahead. That should keep many in the West happy. (Despite what Gandhi said, most people are happier if they see themselves ahead of or above someone else). But if the Chinese succeed, they cannot be that bad. Just that someone elsewhere will be sore about that.
QUOTE FOR THE DAY :
"It is a mystery to me how a man can feel himself honored by the humiliation of his fellow being" - Gandhi
Below is the 'editor' reply and my response in italics.
To: Arthur Iger@JPMORGAN
cc: William Dunmyer@Jpmorgan
Subject: Re: FEEDBACK: Technology Industry Daily - Tuesday September 5, 2000
Arthur, My responses in red (italics)..... Rgds CCK
From: Arthur Iger on 09/08/2000 10:29 AM EDT
To: Chee-Khiaw Cheng@JPMORGAN
cc: William Dunmyer@JPMORGAN
Subject: Re: FEEDBACK: Technology Industry Daily - Tuesday September 5, 2000
Chee-Khiaw,
Thank you for your very thoughtful feedback. I have visited Singapore several times. It is a delightful, well run and clean place. I am an admirer of the speed and focus of Singapore's development into a first rate economic power under the present administration - from its somewhat humble beginnings. Singapore's single-minded focus on making the country an attractive place for business, including its effort to wire the Island for the Internet, has been the reason that it's been chosen as the Asian corporate headquarters by many multinational companies. I also admire the incorruptible reputation of the Singaporean government. One other thing that I admire about Singapore is that it's a multi-ethnic society that seems to function without the racism and violence that exists in many other countries.
[CCK:
I am very well aware of your observations above. I've gone round the world a few times but do not claim to have it figured out or have its issues condensed to a few simple answers....
Racism does exist in Singapore. It will be too idealistic to think otherwise. The reason why it does not get out of hand and result in violence is because the government manages it closely and carefully - to the acceptance of all races. To be able to do so requires active/real promotion of harmony and taking firm action against people who try to play it up - known as heavy handedness to some 'observers'. More importantly it requires a set of good souls to achieve and not just a set of nice sounding declarations. Substance and not form. The former is for those that lead, the latter for those who just follow (so they know what to repeat after).
Violence is high for places where there exist great injustices or imbalances, or if there are people who has nothing to lose when that happens or if they think they can get away with it. That situation does not exist (at this moment) in Singapore.]
But the give-up has been civil liberties which I believe that Singapore's Senior Minister, Mr. Lee has spoken of as a virtue. Censorship of the Western Press for anti-government remarks, suspension of habeas corpus, and the intrusion of the government into everyday activities of personal choice such as chewing gum are a few examples.
[CCK:
Mr Lee was talking about "absolute freedom" and finding a balance between that and other aspects in life and society. Balance may require some compromises that may be called "give-up". He recognises that our world is not perfect and societies have to find the right mix for themselves. He also recognises that that mix will necessarily have to change as society changes and governments must adapt to it and the democratic system is the best system to be able to do that.
Singapore's position is that any publication making remarks about Singapore's politics should be liable to due process of law in Singapore and equal access to rebuttal. Only when that is not accepted would they restrict circulation of the publication involved.
Suspension of habeas corpus probably refers to the Internal Security Act that Britain implemented in the 50s and retained till today. The British saw the situation then and deem it fit for the same reason LKY was quoted as saying.
Chewing gum is a personal choice but sticking it all over the place and, in some instances, stopping the whole sub-way system is more than a personal issue. The government does not ban consumption of gum but the sale of it just as it bans advertisements of cigarettes.]
If, as you assert, Deputy Prime Minister Tan's remarks were not signalling an intention to permit greater civil liberties in order to make Singapore an even more attractive place to work, then I apologize for the error, but am nonetheless disappointed. I believe that personal liberties are a core component of creativity. And that creativity is a core driver in the new economy.
[CCK:
Proper awareness, Right Education, and Liberty from fear, prejudices, violence, established rules and regulations, and someone else's expectations and notions are all important for creativity. Some people may say it is only genes - otherwise they can't explain why African Americans have proportionately less Nobel prize winners than whites since everything else is great and the same in the US. But others ask : is that really the case or is there more to that? Are there more factors and considerations at play? For example, how do we explain the beautiful music 'created' by Stephen Foster that Americans now proudly call their own that was really Ethiopian music that was not recognised as creative at all until Stephen Foster came along?
Mr Tan was very specific about which aspects his government was looking at but he did not say anywhere that his government has a heavy handed approach to civil liberties. The extrapolation to civil liberties was someone else taking liberty at it which I find incredible.
more below....]
As to your comment about the persecution of Dr. Wen Ho Lee in the U.S. for espionage. Many people in the U.S. disagree with the government's position. The free press in the U.S. for example noted that many of the documents that Dr. Lee downloaded onto his computer were reclassified as secret after he was arrested. Civil Liberties are not just about creativity, they are about making sure that the government doesn't use its power in arbitrary ways.
Art
Below are some quotations from Lee Kuan Yew, Singapore's first Prime Minister
http://www.thecore.nus.edu.sg/landow/post/singapore/government/leekuanyew/lky5.html
As the authors of Lee Kuan Yew: The Man and His Ideas (1998) point out, Lee rejected "the notion that all men yearned for democratic freedoms, prizing free speech and the vote over other needs such as economic development. Asian societies, he contended, were different, having evolved separately from the West over the centuries" [126]. Lee also argued, "somewhat controversially," that "notions of absolute rights to freedom for individuals would sometimes have to be compromised in order to help maintain public order and security." He was therefore willing to suspend the right of habeas corpus, "or an open and fair trial, for known criminals or political agitators" on the grounds that "witnesses were too cowed to come forward to testify against them.
In his May 1991 address to the Asahi Shimbun symposium, Lee argued that Asians "want higher standards of living in an orderly society. They want to have as much individual choice in lifestyle, political liberties and freedoms as is compatible with the interests of the community." He granted that once a country has attained a certain level of education and industrialization, it "may need representative government . . . to reconcile conflicting group interests in society and maintain social order and stability. Representative government is also one way for a people to forge a new consensus, a social compact, on how a society settles the trade-off between further rapid economic growth and individual freedoms." [147]
Han Fook Kwang, Warren Fernandez, Sumiko Tan. Lee Kuan Yew: The Man and His Ideas. Singapore: Times, 1998.
Here's another group that provides an objective ranking of Civil Liberties in various countries. The complete survey is at http://www.worldaudit.org/civillibs.htm
The Freedom House Annual Survey employs a Civil Liberties checklist to help monitor the progress and decline of human rights worldwide. Each country is rated on a seven-category scale, 1 representing the most free and 7 the least free.
Country 1999 Civil Liberties Score 1998 Score Democracy Rank
United States 1, 1, 11
United Kingdom 2, 2, 15
Singapore 5, 5, 64
China 6, 6, 121
Denmark 1, 1, 1
[CCK:
It is very interesting how many among us live in a world where credibility seem to increase because of the use of :
- words & methods like 'objective', 'checklists' and 'methodology'
- nice sounding names for an organisation like "Freedom House"
and not aware that we just may be living out the rules and concepts set out by someone else.
My questions are :
- could someone be trying to play God?
- how do these people think that they have the secret formula for the future of the human race?
- are we not forcing everyone to live according to a set of rules/measures made up by a small group of people if the human race is going to live by its ratings?
- where then are liberty and diversity?
- do we ever notice that no country outside of the Western countries has such organisations to measure how others perform against their expectations? Who are these peope who think they can play God simply because they own most of the wealth (measured in USD) and the destructive power of the world? Is that advancement? Who ever defined human progress as that?
The world is much more complicated (and, to some, illusory) than any of us can fully comprehend and there are many questions that we should ponder. Let's take specific restrictions in Singapore and see if they really affect civil liberty or creativity :
- chewing gums.
Do we believe Einstein or any REALLY creative being (which counts most of us out) would be any less so without those gums? But one irresponsible gummer did bring the whole country's sub-way system to a halt!
- drugs and guns
If they make a difference it is in taking more lives - those whose yearn for liberty no one will ever hear.
- libel suit against political opposition
read LKY's interview with Fortune. May be we should think about Germany's liberty and creativity under Hitler.
Other examples from the survey results:
- do we notice that most of the countries with the highest democracy rating are countries with the most homogeneous and wealthy population? We may ask if those factors have a bearing on the results.
- Israel has a higher democracy rating than Singapore. Is that really the case for the Palestinians living in Israel compared to any racial group living in Singapore?
- India has higher rating than Singapore. Do we realise that a Tamil esp. Tamil woman in Singapore has a much better life and future than one in India? Would a Tamil woman in India care about that rating if her family earns less than US$10 a day and can barely survive?
- I assume the inter-ranking between countries practicing one-man-one-vote measures some form of variations or nuances. But what are those differences and what do they mean? Who is judging which is better or worse?
Lastly, there are a lot of creative people in Silicon Valley. Many are people who migrated from Asia including Singapore. But that does not mean any of the following :
- that they suddenly found creativity on arrival in the US or they would have lost it if they did not
- that they are in the US because their countries lack freedom and civil liberties
- New York or Florida could have been a Silicon Valley
Things are much more complex than that.
Narrow piece-meal measures of life by a small group of people with little real interest at stake in the actual outcome of life in a particular country is simplistic and dangerous. The creative ones (that crop up everywhere) can go anywhere. But because countries refuse to let the others enter their countries (in the name of national interest and not liberty), those that remain have to make the best out of what they have and they have to cater to some very real challenges.]
As to my saying that China views Singapore as a model, here's an excerpt from a Fortune Magazine article which appeared in August '97 and included an interview with Senior Minister Lee.
http://www.fortune.com/fortune/1997/970804/yew.html
"Lee Kuan Yew is not one to shy away from controversy, whether by expounding on the superiority of Asian values or hounding his critics in court. But lately Singapore's senior minister and the successful system he largely created have been in the spotlight for a different reason: A growing number of leaders would like to emulate them. Tung Chee Hwa, the new Chief Executive of China's Hong Kong, has expressed his open admiration for Lee's Singapore; China, too, looks upon the island state as a model...."
[CCK:
The above quote is NOT Lee Kuan Yew's own words but that of Fortune Magazine. And he is a smarter man with a much broader read of the global picture than the one that made those statements - if you care to read LKY's own words published by Fortune (we're not sure if that's the full text but good enough for this purpose).
There is nothing inherently wrong with leaders of any country voluntarily desiring to emulate certain aspects of another country if they think it right for the country's circumstances. In the case of Hong Kong, that desire is nowhere near what the British government has done to it - forcibly apply colonial rule for 200 years and, just before returning it to China, Chris Patten let loose a system perculiar to both the Hong Kong people and what Britain itself practiced in HK for that 200 years. May be we should ask : who is taking the liberty?
In the interview published by Fortune there was no mention of emulating the particular characteristic implied to have existed in Singapore by your comments - heavy handed approach to civil liberties.]
From: Arthur Iger on 09/05/2000 09:24 AM EDT
To: Technology Industry Daily Recipients
Subject: Technology Industry Daily - Tuesday September 5, 2000
J.P. Morgan, LabMorgan
Tuesday September 5, 2000
Volume 4, Number 156
Internet economy drives liberalization in Singapore
In a clear departure from it state-control approach to commerce, Singapore’s deputy prime minister signaled yesterday that country was adopting a more laissez-faire attitude, IDG News reported. "From now on, everything is allowed in business in Singapore unless it is specifically banned; previously, what was not explicitly allowed was generally regarded as banned," said Singapore's Deputy Prime Minister Tony Tan. "The world economy and the way businesses are run are being transformed by the triple driving forces of technological innovation, globalization, and liberalization. Under the onslaught of these forces, old paradigms are being examined and new paradigms are being thrown up almost by the day. People will continue to be a critical resource in the new economic phase we are moving into."
IDG News quoted Tan’s remarks from an official transcript of a speech given Friday to honor successful technology entrepreneurs in Singapore. As an example of the government’s liberalization, Tan pointed to Singapore’s easing of bankruptcy laws to make them less intimidating for small companies and potential technopreneurs. The government is also making it easier for foreign IT experts and technopreneurs to work in Singapore, Tan said.
Editor's Comments:
This appears to be a real sea change on the part of the government of Singapore. Previously, some observers saw Singapore as a government, which was heavy handed in the areas of civil liberties. While, the government's move is far short of a "Bill of Rights" for Singapore citizens, it's a bow to the belief that greater personal freedom is linked both to creativity and to making Singapore an attractive environment for the people-driven technologies of the future.
China has looked to Singapore as a model for how to achieve significant development without the need for an evolved environment of personal freedom. The hope is that China will continue to choose to follow Singapore's lead in this area as well.
Quote for the day:
"Reading is being the arm and being the axe and being the skull; reading is giving up, not holding yourself at a distance and jeering."
- J.M. Coetzee, The Master of Petersburg
Arthur Iger
New York, NY 10260
(212) 235-0504
iger_arthur@jpmorgan.com
Chee-Khiaw Cheng
09/08/00 05:34 AM
To: Arthur Iger@JPMORGAN
Subject: FEEDBACK: Technology Industry Daily - Tuesday September 5, 2000
Hi Arthur,
Feedback on the Editor's Comment on the article on Liberalization in Singapore.
I am quite amazed by the editor's re-interpretation of the Singapore minister's comments as reported by IDG News relating to how it and the country should approach the issues of :
- interpreting regulations in light of the fast changing & competitive nature of the new economy
- bankruptcy laws and its relationship to discouraging enterpreneurs
- attracting more foreign talents and enterpreneurs
The Editor on its part has chosen to change Singapore's proactive attempt to address those issues that all governments in the world currently faces (except that Singapore does it faster & better than many governments in this world) to one of civil liberty and imply that that was the origin of the minister's comments.
My comments are as follows :
- I am a foreigner who has been living in Singapore for the last 15 years and has not encountered any incident where my civil liberties were restricted. In fact I find Singapore a place where I can safely and confidently do anything I wish anytime of the day AND NIGHT as long as I do not infringe on the liberties of someone else. That does not exist in even New York.
- there are a number of Americans that have personally told me that they prefer living in Singapore to the US for exactly the same reasons.
- We have many western expatriates within JP Morgan including Americans that hang on to staying in Singapore instead of returning home - something hardly sensible for 'free Americans' if their civil liberties are not protected.
- 1 in 5 people in Singapore is a foreigner. From all over the world, they are here to make a better future for their family. That is a much higher ratio than Britain, Japan or Germany.
- never has there been an incident where Singapore tried (as the US tried so hard to do) to make accusation stick to one of its citizen for espionage for a foreign country like that of Lee Wen Ho
- never has any significant group of citizenry of Singapore publicly (for they can do so anywhere on earth) has accused Singapore of racial or sexual discrimination let alone limiting their civil rights. The US has all of those issues since its inception to today.
- no country in this world which was an ex-colony exploited by Britain for 300 years could have achieved for its people the same living standard as Britain in its 30 short yrs of existence if its people's liberties were highly restricted.
- no government as honest as this one who publicly recognises those new challenges of the new economy and takes conscious steps to keep its people relevant (as it did for 30 yrs) as one of the most competitive in the world can do so in a repressive environment.
I follow this publication daily with a great degree of trust and expectation that the comments provide an objective analysis on a subject. Obviously that requires the commentator to be well informed on the subject - something I do not expect one person to have but has so far assumed that fair due diligence has been performed. Otherwise, I expect forthrightness in abstention.
In this case where I have first hand experience on the country commented on, I have a good basis to perform a reality check on the comments. Me and a few readers here in Singapore can only conclude that the comments arose out of ignorance. Ignorance by itself & unaware is not an issue unless it contributes to dis-information. Then it will be a disfavour to its readership and the credibility of the publication.
By the way, the Singapore government do believe that liberty does not mean license to do things with irresponsibility and impunity, and conducts itself accordingly. Many irresponsible people see that as heavy handedness.
Rgds
CCK
p.s. Do leave China out of this. I'm very confident that the Editor has zero or little knowledge on the realities and history of China to make a fair comment on it. If they are so terrible, they will fail and the West will be ahead. That should keep many in the West happy. (Despite what Gandhi said, most people are happier if they see themselves ahead of or above someone else). But if the Chinese succeed, they cannot be that bad. Just that someone elsewhere will be sore about that.
QUOTE FOR THE DAY :
"It is a mystery to me how a man can feel himself honored by the humiliation of his fellow being" - Gandhi
Below is the 'editor' reply and my response in italics.
To: Arthur Iger@JPMORGAN
cc: William Dunmyer@Jpmorgan
Subject: Re: FEEDBACK: Technology Industry Daily - Tuesday September 5, 2000
Arthur, My responses in red (italics)..... Rgds CCK
From: Arthur Iger on 09/08/2000 10:29 AM EDT
To: Chee-Khiaw Cheng@JPMORGAN
cc: William Dunmyer@JPMORGAN
Subject: Re: FEEDBACK: Technology Industry Daily - Tuesday September 5, 2000
Chee-Khiaw,
Thank you for your very thoughtful feedback. I have visited Singapore several times. It is a delightful, well run and clean place. I am an admirer of the speed and focus of Singapore's development into a first rate economic power under the present administration - from its somewhat humble beginnings. Singapore's single-minded focus on making the country an attractive place for business, including its effort to wire the Island for the Internet, has been the reason that it's been chosen as the Asian corporate headquarters by many multinational companies. I also admire the incorruptible reputation of the Singaporean government. One other thing that I admire about Singapore is that it's a multi-ethnic society that seems to function without the racism and violence that exists in many other countries.
[CCK:
I am very well aware of your observations above. I've gone round the world a few times but do not claim to have it figured out or have its issues condensed to a few simple answers....
Racism does exist in Singapore. It will be too idealistic to think otherwise. The reason why it does not get out of hand and result in violence is because the government manages it closely and carefully - to the acceptance of all races. To be able to do so requires active/real promotion of harmony and taking firm action against people who try to play it up - known as heavy handedness to some 'observers'. More importantly it requires a set of good souls to achieve and not just a set of nice sounding declarations. Substance and not form. The former is for those that lead, the latter for those who just follow (so they know what to repeat after).
Violence is high for places where there exist great injustices or imbalances, or if there are people who has nothing to lose when that happens or if they think they can get away with it. That situation does not exist (at this moment) in Singapore.]
But the give-up has been civil liberties which I believe that Singapore's Senior Minister, Mr. Lee has spoken of as a virtue. Censorship of the Western Press for anti-government remarks, suspension of habeas corpus, and the intrusion of the government into everyday activities of personal choice such as chewing gum are a few examples.
[CCK:
Mr Lee was talking about "absolute freedom" and finding a balance between that and other aspects in life and society. Balance may require some compromises that may be called "give-up". He recognises that our world is not perfect and societies have to find the right mix for themselves. He also recognises that that mix will necessarily have to change as society changes and governments must adapt to it and the democratic system is the best system to be able to do that.
Singapore's position is that any publication making remarks about Singapore's politics should be liable to due process of law in Singapore and equal access to rebuttal. Only when that is not accepted would they restrict circulation of the publication involved.
Suspension of habeas corpus probably refers to the Internal Security Act that Britain implemented in the 50s and retained till today. The British saw the situation then and deem it fit for the same reason LKY was quoted as saying.
Chewing gum is a personal choice but sticking it all over the place and, in some instances, stopping the whole sub-way system is more than a personal issue. The government does not ban consumption of gum but the sale of it just as it bans advertisements of cigarettes.]
If, as you assert, Deputy Prime Minister Tan's remarks were not signalling an intention to permit greater civil liberties in order to make Singapore an even more attractive place to work, then I apologize for the error, but am nonetheless disappointed. I believe that personal liberties are a core component of creativity. And that creativity is a core driver in the new economy.
[CCK:
Proper awareness, Right Education, and Liberty from fear, prejudices, violence, established rules and regulations, and someone else's expectations and notions are all important for creativity. Some people may say it is only genes - otherwise they can't explain why African Americans have proportionately less Nobel prize winners than whites since everything else is great and the same in the US. But others ask : is that really the case or is there more to that? Are there more factors and considerations at play? For example, how do we explain the beautiful music 'created' by Stephen Foster that Americans now proudly call their own that was really Ethiopian music that was not recognised as creative at all until Stephen Foster came along?
Mr Tan was very specific about which aspects his government was looking at but he did not say anywhere that his government has a heavy handed approach to civil liberties. The extrapolation to civil liberties was someone else taking liberty at it which I find incredible.
more below....]
As to your comment about the persecution of Dr. Wen Ho Lee in the U.S. for espionage. Many people in the U.S. disagree with the government's position. The free press in the U.S. for example noted that many of the documents that Dr. Lee downloaded onto his computer were reclassified as secret after he was arrested. Civil Liberties are not just about creativity, they are about making sure that the government doesn't use its power in arbitrary ways.
Art
Below are some quotations from Lee Kuan Yew, Singapore's first Prime Minister
http://www.thecore.nus.edu.sg/landow/post/singapore/government/leekuanyew/lky5.html
As the authors of Lee Kuan Yew: The Man and His Ideas (1998) point out, Lee rejected "the notion that all men yearned for democratic freedoms, prizing free speech and the vote over other needs such as economic development. Asian societies, he contended, were different, having evolved separately from the West over the centuries" [126]. Lee also argued, "somewhat controversially," that "notions of absolute rights to freedom for individuals would sometimes have to be compromised in order to help maintain public order and security." He was therefore willing to suspend the right of habeas corpus, "or an open and fair trial, for known criminals or political agitators" on the grounds that "witnesses were too cowed to come forward to testify against them.
In his May 1991 address to the Asahi Shimbun symposium, Lee argued that Asians "want higher standards of living in an orderly society. They want to have as much individual choice in lifestyle, political liberties and freedoms as is compatible with the interests of the community." He granted that once a country has attained a certain level of education and industrialization, it "may need representative government . . . to reconcile conflicting group interests in society and maintain social order and stability. Representative government is also one way for a people to forge a new consensus, a social compact, on how a society settles the trade-off between further rapid economic growth and individual freedoms." [147]
Han Fook Kwang, Warren Fernandez, Sumiko Tan. Lee Kuan Yew: The Man and His Ideas. Singapore: Times, 1998.
Here's another group that provides an objective ranking of Civil Liberties in various countries. The complete survey is at http://www.worldaudit.org/civillibs.htm
The Freedom House Annual Survey employs a Civil Liberties checklist to help monitor the progress and decline of human rights worldwide. Each country is rated on a seven-category scale, 1 representing the most free and 7 the least free.
Country 1999 Civil Liberties Score 1998 Score Democracy Rank
United States 1, 1, 11
United Kingdom 2, 2, 15
Singapore 5, 5, 64
China 6, 6, 121
Denmark 1, 1, 1
[CCK:
It is very interesting how many among us live in a world where credibility seem to increase because of the use of :
- words & methods like 'objective', 'checklists' and 'methodology'
- nice sounding names for an organisation like "Freedom House"
and not aware that we just may be living out the rules and concepts set out by someone else.
My questions are :
- could someone be trying to play God?
- how do these people think that they have the secret formula for the future of the human race?
- are we not forcing everyone to live according to a set of rules/measures made up by a small group of people if the human race is going to live by its ratings?
- where then are liberty and diversity?
- do we ever notice that no country outside of the Western countries has such organisations to measure how others perform against their expectations? Who are these peope who think they can play God simply because they own most of the wealth (measured in USD) and the destructive power of the world? Is that advancement? Who ever defined human progress as that?
The world is much more complicated (and, to some, illusory) than any of us can fully comprehend and there are many questions that we should ponder. Let's take specific restrictions in Singapore and see if they really affect civil liberty or creativity :
- chewing gums.
Do we believe Einstein or any REALLY creative being (which counts most of us out) would be any less so without those gums? But one irresponsible gummer did bring the whole country's sub-way system to a halt!
- drugs and guns
If they make a difference it is in taking more lives - those whose yearn for liberty no one will ever hear.
- libel suit against political opposition
read LKY's interview with Fortune. May be we should think about Germany's liberty and creativity under Hitler.
Other examples from the survey results:
- do we notice that most of the countries with the highest democracy rating are countries with the most homogeneous and wealthy population? We may ask if those factors have a bearing on the results.
- Israel has a higher democracy rating than Singapore. Is that really the case for the Palestinians living in Israel compared to any racial group living in Singapore?
- India has higher rating than Singapore. Do we realise that a Tamil esp. Tamil woman in Singapore has a much better life and future than one in India? Would a Tamil woman in India care about that rating if her family earns less than US$10 a day and can barely survive?
- I assume the inter-ranking between countries practicing one-man-one-vote measures some form of variations or nuances. But what are those differences and what do they mean? Who is judging which is better or worse?
Lastly, there are a lot of creative people in Silicon Valley. Many are people who migrated from Asia including Singapore. But that does not mean any of the following :
- that they suddenly found creativity on arrival in the US or they would have lost it if they did not
- that they are in the US because their countries lack freedom and civil liberties
- New York or Florida could have been a Silicon Valley
Things are much more complex than that.
Narrow piece-meal measures of life by a small group of people with little real interest at stake in the actual outcome of life in a particular country is simplistic and dangerous. The creative ones (that crop up everywhere) can go anywhere. But because countries refuse to let the others enter their countries (in the name of national interest and not liberty), those that remain have to make the best out of what they have and they have to cater to some very real challenges.]
As to my saying that China views Singapore as a model, here's an excerpt from a Fortune Magazine article which appeared in August '97 and included an interview with Senior Minister Lee.
http://www.fortune.com/fortune/1997/970804/yew.html
"Lee Kuan Yew is not one to shy away from controversy, whether by expounding on the superiority of Asian values or hounding his critics in court. But lately Singapore's senior minister and the successful system he largely created have been in the spotlight for a different reason: A growing number of leaders would like to emulate them. Tung Chee Hwa, the new Chief Executive of China's Hong Kong, has expressed his open admiration for Lee's Singapore; China, too, looks upon the island state as a model...."
[CCK:
The above quote is NOT Lee Kuan Yew's own words but that of Fortune Magazine. And he is a smarter man with a much broader read of the global picture than the one that made those statements - if you care to read LKY's own words published by Fortune (we're not sure if that's the full text but good enough for this purpose).
There is nothing inherently wrong with leaders of any country voluntarily desiring to emulate certain aspects of another country if they think it right for the country's circumstances. In the case of Hong Kong, that desire is nowhere near what the British government has done to it - forcibly apply colonial rule for 200 years and, just before returning it to China, Chris Patten let loose a system perculiar to both the Hong Kong people and what Britain itself practiced in HK for that 200 years. May be we should ask : who is taking the liberty?
In the interview published by Fortune there was no mention of emulating the particular characteristic implied to have existed in Singapore by your comments - heavy handed approach to civil liberties.]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)