Construction Worker Productivity

RE: Fewer foreign workers needed if productivity improves: Khaw

This issue about construction workers productivity has been ongoing for years and decades.

Back when I was an undergrad (starting in the mid 90s), we were introduced to the issue of lack of productivity of the construction industry/workers in Singapore. I remember a lecturer commenting that 1 truly skilled construction worker (e.g. Australian, though more expensive per worker) could do the work of more than a few unskilled construction workers one commonly finds in Singapore.

Further back in the 80s, SG was dependent on Thai and Korean construction workers, which resulted in problems such as violent fights. These days, we get our workers from South Asia and China. Apart from keeping them entertained on their off-days, housing the thousands of workers is also a problem.

And it's not just us poor Singaporeans who suffer in the 'import foreign workers' equation. The foreign workers also suffer. Getting cheated by their agents, working overtime without getting compensated adequately, getting injured without adequate medical attention, getting housed under terrible living conditions etc.

Makes one wonder what is the point of giving BCA honchos awards for attempts at creating frilly construction industry awards, when such fundamental problems in the construction industry have not been resolved for decades.

Isn't it hypocritical to claim to have a "green master plan" to champion for green buildings in Singapore, i.e. being conscious about Mother Earth's resources etc, while throwing copious shovels of human labour (because human labour is so damn cheap) at the same construction project?

I hope Minister Khaw will make a real difference to the construction portfolio.

龍年快樂！

새해 복 많이 받으세요!

Ai Pee Ai Tcee... Ai Dua Lyap N-n-n ...

I think many people have misunderstood Ag Minister Chan's Chye Tau Kueh analogy.

To me, his point was clearly about price vs quality aka 一分钱，一分货, but many distorted it and instead argued that it was about:

(i) Affordability, i.e. 'we poor people cannot afford $10 Chye Tau Kueh'; or
(ii) 'Cheap and good' Chye Tau Kueh and ministers do exist; or simply
(iii) Kee Chiu Chan is elitist.

Affordable Ministers
Affordability is an invalid argument here, because Singapore, as a country, can definitely afford to pay our ministers multi-million dollar salaries.

(Come on, we freaking built the expensive Gardens by the Bay at S$1.4 BILLION and counting... This figure does not include the cost of the 100ha of reclaimed land it sits on, ok?!)

Many people have mistaken their own tight financial situation for the nation's financial health. As a nation, we definitely can pay our leaders high, or even higher, salaries.

Also, it's not as if Singaporeans will be paying less taxes after the 1/3 ministerial pay cuts. Neither would the pay cuts be redistributed to all Singaporeans. See my point? Nothing to do with whether Singapore can 'afford' to pay high salaries.

'Cheap and Good' Ministers
As for those of us who believe there are enough capable people out there, who will:

(a) wholeheartedly take up a minister's job,

(b) at a starting pay of under S$1mil, and

(c) put up with the crazy scrutiny and criticism from everyone and anyone,

I think such thoughts are a clear sign of delusion.

Just because you can find 1 'Cheap and Good' candidate, doesn't mean you can find enough of them to fill the Cabinet, and for the years to come.

Before you go all ballistic about the spirit of public service and how that means one should not be drawing high salaries, please be reminded that while not getting paid for her relentless and selfless efforts, Mother Teresa didn't have to publicly account for her causes or work. She didn't have to explain why she had chosen to feed/ tend to these mouths and not help them in other ways or at all. Nor did she have to justify her choice of beneficiaries, e.g. which nationalities, race, illness types, etc. She just did the work she thought was necessary, and chose to invest herself in it.

Net Result of Succumbing to Demands for Ministerial Pay Cut
I believe that paying our minister less, while expecting more, is a slippery down slope slide.

The new pay, as it stands now, together with this new wave of extreme criticism and scrutiny by the public, will end up attracting the following:

(1) Not-the-best people from the private sector

Pay is not the best indicator of talent, but let's see who earns more than our ministers anyway.

Hmmm... Let's see... Oh wow... Former CEO MRT, Saw, made more than the revised minsters' pay. She made S$1.4million (before share options). So if she's willing to take a 30% pay cut to serve as a Minister, does it mean Singapore has found itself a great leader with 'sense of duty and self-sacrifice'?

How many great talents from the private sector are willing to forgo their top jobs, where they would probably only need to answer to a 10-member board, and trade that for a job which subjects them (along with their family) to extreme public scrutiny and criticism by 3.x million people? What will happen after they have been voted out of this job? Can they return to their careers in the private sector?

(2) Second-tier top civil servants and uniformed officers (coz their retirement age is earlier than norm)

I'm referring to 'second tier' from the very top, i.e. those who are unlikely to make it to the top civil servant positions such as Permanent Secretary.

Maturing as Thinking Followers
I know this point is merely me being naive, but I'll say it anyway.

Even if we somehow are able to find enough people with fiery passion and right heart to fill the Cabinet, the incessant demands from the public will get louder, and eventually simply distract our leaders from focusing on their core functions (which are not clear to begin with). They will end up having to constantly manage these incessant voices.

This is not to say everyone ought to shut up. But it is also time for us to learn about maturity as followers. We probably need a 'Sane and Thinking Citizens campaign', but not under that name coz people's egos will be wounded.

It's great that more Singaporeans are interested in politics these days, but such interests should not be left unguided, unchecked and unharnessed. It's an entire craft altogether to manage public's opinion and feedback.

If not, we may slide into a situation where it's just bickering and mud-slinging all the time, while little time and effort can be devoted to getting the work done. And eventually, politicians will keep coming and going like a revolving door.

Just take a look at Japan. 7 prime ministers in the last 10 years, with 1 change per year in the last 7 years. Each change of PM bringing along a Cabinet reshuffle. How much time and effort are really spent on getting work done?

Don't say silly things like "Oh... That's just Japan. We will not be like that."

Who's gonna stop something like that from happening?
You, me, or the incessantly noisy public?
It's very easy to be destructive, but it's very difficult to be constructive.

阿公 ain't gonna be around to slap people for misbehaving anymore.
Wanna imagine a situation where we will end up slapping one another as we fancy?

Talk, no matter how pretty the words are, is so cheap.

Mooiness was in Singapore recently, and came to visit us. This is the 5th time since we first met in the flesh in Dec 2005. =))

During our Bak Kut Teh lunch, he recapped how his dog, Snoop, had attacked the neighbour's dog and could have been taken away.

Mooiness said,"Snoop is great with humans, but he just doesn't like his own kind."

Immediately, I said,"I can totally relate to that! I love cats, but I don't really like humans. LOL!!"

What is 'Professionalisation of Hawker Centres'?

Been wanting to write about this topic for weeks, but I have been distracted.

I remember reading about Minister Vivian's comments on that hawker centres ought to be professionalised some time ago. But he did not give details on what 'professionalisation' meant. It was kept vague.

To me, 'professionalisation of hawker centres' sounds like getting an operator to take over the hawker centre from NEA. If Minister Vivian had meant 'professionalisation of hawkers', then that would take on an entirely different meaning, but he didn't actually say that.

Currently, there are only 2 main parties in the Hawker Centre equation, i.e. NEA and the Hawkers. (Let's not talk about the cleaning subcontractors.) Under the 'new scheme', one could expect that an Operator will come in-between NEA and the Hawkers, probably via a bidding system, where the highest bidding Operator will win the rights to operate the hawker centre for the next X years. It's a different business model for hawker centres.

I've summarised the key milestones in the life-cycle of a hawker centre below. You can easily compare who's doing what before and after the new scheme.

Stage	Milestones	Under NEA	Under ‘New Scheme’
A	Planning	NEA	NEA
B	Building	NEA	NEA or Operator
C	Leasing stalls	NEA	Operator  (Operator may choose to lease stalls to individual hawkers, or employ hawkers.)
D	Cleaning, Maintenance & Upgrading	NEA	Operator

Sounds simple enough. Not too different from a shopping centre operator winning the bid to develop a shopping centre on a parcel of land zoned Commericial for retail purposes, then leasing shop space to individual retailers.

From an efficiency-driven policy perspective, this sounds like the optimal solution to maximise the income revenue per hawker centre, minimise public manpower in terms of hawker centre management etc, while claiming that the 'standards of lowest-rung of foods in Singapore will be improved with institutionalisation (aka professionalisation, modernisation etc)'.

Is that all there is to the picture?

As with all types of policy changes, some parties will lose, and some parties will win. And sometimes, a couple of parties will win BIG, while many others will lose BIG.

See the quick summary of expected pros and cons from the perspectives of the various groups involved in such a change:

	Expected Pros	Expected Cons
For NEA	Devolvement of responsibilities to Operator Focus on planning and regulatory functions only Can claim ‘market forces’ and is likely to extract more revenue from each hawker centre.	Loss of control
For Operator	Solid business opportunities Strengthen brand presence by forming islandwide chain of hawker centres, food courts etc.	-
For Hawker	May be able to operate a stall in cleaner, cooler environment. May be employed by Operator	Faced with increasing rental obligations Loss of impetus to improve/innovate Loss of business ownership Loss of livelihood
For Consumer	Enjoy food in a cleaner, cooler environment	Increase in food prices Decrease in food quality and/or innovation of food
For Others	-	Subcontractors (cleaning, disposable cutlery vendors, food stuff and supplies etc) may be able to cut bigger deals with the Operator, but prices have to be lowered. Hence, smaller suppliers/subcons may go out of business over time. Kopitiam owners/stallholders will be facing direct competition from the new-model hawker centres, forcing them to either upgrade themselves and/or lower their prices. Eventually, the chains may take over to operate at greater 'efficiency'.

3 Inevitable Negative Outcomes:
Loss of Livelihood,
Loss of Food Innovation,
Increase in Food Prices 

Akin to the price-hikes of taxis in Singapore, there is little the government can or will do when the operator decides to raise the rents it charges to the tenants (e.g. the hawkers). It is merely a 'private agreement' between 2 parties.

Rental increases will inevitably and eventually be passed onto consumers as increase in food prices. This is the government giving up control over stall rentals and food prices.

More so than ever, I would be concerned with hawkers losing their livelihood as a result of this new scheme.

If you pay just a little attention, every hawker centre has hawkers selling duplicate foods and drinks. E.g. There will be more than 1 drinks stall, more than 1 chicken rice stall, more than 1 Economy Rice stall etc.

This is competition. It helps to keep the prices of each food and drink low, while encouraging each hawker to innovate and/or ensure that his food is the best he can create. This competition is the reason why Singapore can boast of many different dishes of exceptional taste and quality. This spirit of innovation is not something you can remove, then attempt to replicate later.

This unique characteristic of the hawker centres ecosystem today also allows for more people to become hawkers, make a livelihood, and be their own boss. This is beyond a question of economics. This is a pragmatic question of survival, personal pride and freedom. Pragmatic management of emotions.


Does it matter that 3 out of 4 chicken rice stalls per hawker centre will never become Tian Tian Chicken Rice?
No. The point here is to give people a chance to try.

And when 1,000 people are trying to make Hainanese chicken rice, after 20 years, Singapore will eventually boast of a Tian Tian Chicken Rice.

Now, once the Operator starts to rationalise this creative chaos, there will only be 1 drinks stall, 1 chicken rice stall, 1 prata stall, 1 laksa stall, 1 desserts stall etc in every hawker centre.

Overall stall space will be reduced, while seating areas will be expanded. It becomes a food court. And I don't remember finding any great memorable foods in food courts. Food court offerings are usually plain and ubiquitous.

The Operator could either lease each stall to an individual hawker and charge him a rent (and sometimes also take a cut of the hawker's earnings), or employ its own cooks and workers (e.g. former hawkers and/or foreign workers) for each food stall, and centrally produce/manage the food types/quality/production, probably in a food factory in Woodlands.

The coveted 'efficiency' and 'productivity' will go up, but the total number of jobs created per hawker centre will drop drastically. Majority of the displaced hawkers will become unemployed, even after you exclude those who are employed by the Operator or set up stalls in the new model hawker centres. This loss, to me, is unacceptable.


I am not against the idea of new-model hawker centres per se.
However, this must be carried out selectively.
Certainly, not ALL hawkers centres ought to come under the new scheme.

One way to minimise potential downsides is to only apply the new scheme to NEW hawker centres, and not existing hawker centres.

Ultimately, there must always be a mix and distribution of new-model and organic hawker centres in any estate.

CCS: Speaking in English

RE: Pay not a primary factor for PAP team: Chan Chun Sing

Before flaming him, you must watch the video of Ag Minister Chan Chun Sing addressing questions from residents and students in Jurong.


He makes mostly clear points.
Except I don't think he is in any position to speak for all his comrades in the Government.

Since Day 1, his biggest problem is his tone.
He never fails to sound lao lan when he speaks in English.
Like he still has the HDB boy's chip on the shoulder, when he has outgrown his flat and bettered his humble background decades ago.

I've watched and listened to Minister Chan speak in Mandarin on TV once. He sounded very decent. Almost like a different person. A caring person.

So, I'm guessing that English is a language which he has learnt via formal schooling and uses it in formal situations such as in school, at work, for go-getting etc. Hence, his brain associates speaking in English with the need to project an air of self-confidence. And when he thinks he needs to 'connect' with his audience, he adds a generous dose of Singlish and Singlish accent.

While Mandarin is an everyday language for him, which he has initially learnt informally and uses it in social situations where he is generally more relaxed.

Now as a politician and minister, he needs to be able to speak in English (not Singlish), and in a relaxed manner. It's not an easy switch. This takes practice. Years and years of practice.

Minister Chan needs to fix this Achilles' heel of his quickly. If not, people will be easily swayed by the better looks and softer tones from competition such as Tan Chuan Jin, who, though takes a lot of front-page heartstrings-tugging pictures such as posing with stray animals and tombstones, doesn't necessarily make points which are as clear/good as Chan's.

Form over function.
Regardless, form is important when one is dealing with the masses.
See public reaction to Minister Chan's comments on $10 vs $1.50 Chye Tao Kuey.

If you don't get your form right, anything you say is crap.
But if you pose for a pic with a stray puppy/tombstone, it doesn't matter at all that you are not making any policy changes. They will still adore you.

This is our future leader in training. Watch him develop himself into our future PM... Maybe not the next PM... But one in the future.

I have a dilemma...

You must help me with this one, ok?

I have a black bedsheet which I have been using for the past 6 years. I like it very much coz it's just plain black and smooth to the touch. I can't seem to be able to find it in the stores anymore.

After earlier this year, I noticed a couple of small 'L'-shaped tears in the bedsheet. About 1cm by 1cm. Nothing too drastic. I stitched them up with black thread and that was it.

Then more of such tears started to appear. And I began to realise that they were at Blinky's preferred corners of the bed. Must be his claws.

After a while, the bedsheet began to look quite stitched up.
Which is kind of cute, but I am totally coloured by my love for the black bedsheet, the cause of the problem (Blinky), and the fact that I cannot find black bedsheets for sale.

My question is: At which point do I decide that 'it's time to let it go'?

Talk Talk Talk

Introvert: I'd rather have no conversation, than poor conversations.

Extrovert: I'd rather have ANY conversations, than no conversation.

Some people are simply desperate for social interaction. I believe it has to do with the addiction to the 'high' one gets when engaging in social interaction. It can be reduced to mere hormone production.

This desperation, in turn, contributes to the problem of poor quality conversations.

Low Pay = Passion + Heart?

"Eric Chiang, head of a wholesale business, said: 

"People who want to go into the public service, I think apart from the pay, it is the passion and heart for the people. So frankly speaking, even if it's a 38 per cent (cut) for the PM, for those who have the heart, perhaps they will even settle for less.""

Source: Channelnewsasia

"Please do not think, for one moment, that you are entitled to receive a high lump sum of pay just because you are serving for the people of Singapore. 

If you were truly so altruistic, you would be accepting a minimal sum of money to just get by."
~ a Singaporean male, who graduated from Imperial College, 

commenting on Senior Minister of State Grace Fu's Facebook post.

Source: Grace Fu's Facebook Wall

LOL! These people are hoping for monks to be running their country!

You wanna pretend that by cutting ministers' pay, that 'things will improve'? That the same people and/or future politicians/ministers will have 'passion and heart for the people'?

Just look at the hard truths in the rest of the world. In other countries, politicians are paid far less than ours. Are they any more 'passion and heart for the people'?

This entire unhappiness with and distrust of the ruling party situation has gotten out of hand.
What exactly is the point of electing someone whom you are unhappy with and unable to trust, then punishing him for being 'imperfect' by cutting his pay drastically?
Nah! Take that!! HAHA! 活该!

What kind of sick mentality is that?!
Whatever happened to the sole intention of electing this person in the first place, i.e. to get the job done?

Even the ruling party is reacting to such strong emotions by holding the PAP mega sale at 36+% discount. O_o

I mean, if the same PM and/or minister can continue to give his 110% to his job after a salary cut of 36%, he is sending out a terrible message that he has been over-charging Singapore for the past few years. This is a terrible mistake.

Everyone just needs to calm down, and realise that it is not the minister's salary that is CAUSING Singaporeans' problems. It is the QUALITY & HEART of leaders, who are in fact elected by the people. To know whether a candidate has quality and heart, takes time. A lot of time.

And to get the right leaders into office, the people must first learn and be clear about what kind of Singaporean society they want, then vote for people who will help to fulfill that vision. This means the people have to spend time and energy to keep up with local politics and participate in local discourse. Most importantly, we must get to know the leaders better.

If majority of voters simply refuses to work at this (to find a way to identify what a good leader is), yet wanna complain, and shoot their votes from the hip every 5 years, then we will all have to suffer the ugly side of democracy, which no modern person wishes to talk about, i.e. an unfortunate election result that is created by rash unthinking masses.

The Conversationalist

"The only basis for a civilised conversation between two people was to treat each other with mutual respect.
It is pointless otherwise."

Guess who said the above?

I have come to realise that there are very few people who are capable of engaging in a civilised conversation. You may not wish to believe so, but it's more likely than not that you are unable to do the above. Simply because lousy and pointless conversations are the norm.

I don't know whether lousy and pointless conversations have always been the norm. And I hate to romanticise about 'better earlier times', when we all existed in 'simpler' lives and were running around hunting small mammals and eating berries off the trees.

What is a lousy and pointless conversation? You may ask.

Many factors degrade the purpose of a conversation.
Mainly, these two factors crack it: Insecurity and Ego.

I absolutely abhor conversations that degenerate into digging and competition. I notice that many, especially females, do this. They just can't stop at 'Oh! Your kid is in Primary School already'. They feel to need to ask which Primary School, then proceed to put down that school with 'I hear what's not-so-great about that school. My kid goes to XYZ school and so doesn't have to put up with that problem.'

And the more conversations you have with the same person, the more pointless and lousier they get.

Some who participate in such conversations love to euphemise their behaviour by terming it as simply 'being concerned' or 'just sharing'. No one will ever admit that the real reason is due to his insecurity and ego. They just feel the uncontrollable need to be superior to you, even if their lame example is saving $5 by buying an iPhone from some obscure shop in Tuas.

One may assume that an 'un-lousy' and 'point-ful' conversation would then be one which is full of intellectual content, jargon and citation of dead famous people's quotes and works, regardless whether the other party understands. But this is in fact simply another manifestation of insecurity and ego. The conversation is still about 'Me Me Me! Shiok Shiok Shiok!', and not about getting to know the other party, or exploring a topic TOGETHER.

And then, you have the conversation where one party only wants to talk about other people/things/monkeys, and refuses to tiptoe anywhere near himself or express his own feelings about anything. I'd be better off talking to Blinky and Tiger. At least, I'd get a genuine and personal response, even if it's a sharp-claw blood-drawing swipe at me.

Lastly, you have the great conversationalist who disbelieves everything you say. "Is it? Are you sure? Cannot be! I don't believe you!" He likes to exclaim. What's the point of having a conversation if you believe that I am a liar?

Hence, it is not an exaggeration to claim that the contemporary conversation is lame and unconstructive.
Don't believe me? Take some time to listen to and observe the next conversation at the pub, in the pantry, during lunch etc, especially those amongst so-called friends.
Avoid making the 'it's like that' conclusion.
Attempt to imagine that conversations could be better.

It takes intelligence to understand and practise mutual respect.
Similarly, it takes intelligence to engage in a civilised conversation.
And I am not talking about IQ. IQ is too common these days. So common that it's crass.