Reuters By Stephanie Simon | Reuter
30/12/2012
http://sg.news.yahoo.com/corrected-yale-under-fire-campus-restrictive-singapore-183816710.html
NEW HAVEN (Reuters) - For more than 300 years, Yale University has prided itself on training top students to question and analyze, to challenge and critique.
Now, Yale is seeking to export those values by establishing the first foreign campus to bear its name, a liberal arts college in Singapore that is set to open this summer. The ambitious, multimillion-dollar project thrills many in the Yale community who say it will help the university maintain its prestige and build global influence.
But it has also stirred sharp criticism from faculty and human-rights advocates who say it is impossible to build an elite college dedicated to free inquiry in an authoritarian nation with heavy restrictions on public speech and assembly.
"Yale's motto is 'Lux et veritas,' or 'Light and truth,'" said Michael Fischer, a Yale professor of computer science. "We're going into a place with severe curbs on light and truth ... We're redefining the brand in a way that's contrary to Yale's values."
Yale President Richard Levin describes the new venture as a chance to extend Yale's tradition of nurturing independent thinkers to a dynamic young nation at the crossroads of Asia. In the 19th century, Yale scholars fanned out to launch dozens of American colleges, Levin noted in a 2010 memo presenting the concept to faculty. "Yale could influence the course of 21st century education as profoundly," he wrote.
Levin, who spent years expanding Yale's campus in New Haven before initiating the Singapore project in 2010, has announced plans to retire at the end of the academic year. His successor, Yale Provost Peter Salovey, also supports the Singapore venture.
Working with the National University of Singapore, or NUS, Yale is building a comprehensive liberal arts college from scratch. The school will offer majors from anthropology to urban studies, electives from fractal geometry to moral reasoning, and a rich menu of extracurricular activities -- sports, drama, debate, even a juggling club.
Scheduled to open this summer with 150 students, it is slated to grow to about 1,000 undergraduates living in a high-rise campus now under construction.
While American universities have been venturing overseas for decades, they have mostly offered tightly focused degree programs, often for graduate students. The closest analogy to the Yale project may be New York University's branch campuses now under construction in Abu Dhabi and Shanghai.
But the new NYU campuses are extensions of the university. The Yale venture, which targets top students from around the globe, is an unusual hybrid.
It will be called Yale-NUS College. It will draw some faculty -- and its inaugural president, Pericles Lewis -- straight from New Haven. Students will spend the summer before freshman year in New Haven, attending seminars with Yale faculty. When they graduate, they will be welcomed into the Association of Yale Alumni.
Yet Yale officials are emphatic that the new school is not a branch campus. The degrees it issues will not be Yale degrees.
"It is not Yale," said Charles Bailyn, an astronomy professor on leave from Yale to serve as the founding dean of Yale-NUS.
OPPORTUNITY OR "FRANKENYALE"?
The new college will be funded entirely by the Singapore government, which will also subsidize tuition. Singapore citizens will pay about $18,000 a year, including room and board. International students will pay about $43,000 unless they secure a discount by committing to work for a Singapore company for three years after graduation.
Yale and Singapore will get an equal number of seats on the new college's governing board -- but Singapore's education minister must approve all the Yale nominees.
The arrangement exposes Yale to risk because its name is on the college, yet the university does not have control over the end product, said Richard Edelstein, who studies trends in higher education at the University of California at Berkeley. One angry member of Yale's faculty, Christopher Miller, a professor of French and African American studies, has dubbed the venture "Frankenyale."
Those involved in the project say the novel structure is a boon that will enable educational experimentation, with an emphasis on interdisciplinary seminars and student research. It's a "once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to build a new college program from the ground up," said Yale anthropologist Bernard Bate, who has signed on to teach in Singapore.
He and others say they will bring the best of their new approach back to New Haven. And they contend that fears about censorship in Singapore are wildly overblown.
That issue came to the fore last spring, when Yale faculty voted 100 to 69 for a resolution raising concern about the venture in light of "the history of lack of respect for civil and political rights" in Singapore.
Human Rights Watch, the international advocacy group, subsequently accused Yale of "betraying the spirit of the university." This month the American Association of University Professors weighed in, expressing concern about the project's implications for academic freedom.
Singapore, an island nation in southeast Asia, is a democracy but has been dominated by one political party since securing independence from Britain half a century ago. In the name of stability and security, the government restricts public demonstrations to a corner of one park and heavily regulates news and entertainment, according to the U.S. State Department.
Last year a British author was jailed for writing a book critical of Singapore's judiciary. This spring the government prevented an opposition politician from leaving the country to speak at the Oslo Freedom Forum.
Still, Yale faculty working on the new college said they had spoken with foreign professors teaching on other campuses in Singapore and came away convinced that academic freedom would be respected.
George Bishop, a Yale PhD who been teaching psychology at the National University of Singapore since 1991, says he has never felt restricted. In a class on the AIDS epidemic, he and his students freely discuss how Singapore's anti-sodomy laws hinder the nation's public-health response.
"We criticize the government all the time in class," said Bishop, who has joined the faculty of the new college.
PLENTY OF APPLICANTS
Yet Yale-NUS will not be free and open in the way American students may expect.
Singapore bans speech deemed to promote racial or religious strife. As long as they toe that line, students will be free to hear speakers and express views inside campus buildings. But many outdoor assemblies will require a government permit, Yale-NUS President Lewis said. Singapore law defines "assembly" quite broadly, to include a single protester holding a sign or an open-air debate.
"Can you march on City Hall?" asked Bailyn, the Yale-NUS dean. No, he answered -- but said that didn't trouble him, as "that's not really an educational matter." Bailyn said he had been promised complete freedom with "the core mission of the college -- researching, teaching, unfettered discussion."
Indeed, Yale-NUS faculty say they expect Singapore to be cautious about interfering with the new college for fear of provoking an incident and prompting Yale to withdraw its name.
"We know what a liberal arts education is, what intellectual freedom is," said Keith Darden, a professor of social sciences at Yale-NUS, "and we'll accept nothing less than that for ourselves and our students."
Under the philosophical questions lies a pragmatic one: Will the new college succeed?
For all its wealth, Singapore has not always proved an ideal marketplace for higher education. Australia's University of New South Wales opened a campus in Singapore in 2007 -- only to shut it after one semester because of low enrollment. This fall, NYU announced it would close its graduate film school in Singapore because of financial trouble.
Other American ventures in Singapore have done better, including a music conservatory developed by Johns Hopkins University.
Interest in Yale-NUS is running high. Almost 2,600 students from around the globe have applied for the initial 150 spots. Several dozen have already been accepted -- among them, Singaporean students who suggest Yale's faculty might do well to back off the criticism and trust in the value of the liberal arts education they hold so dear.
"Ideological purity and moral righteousness from these critics will not make Singapore a free society, but education and the spread of ideas will," Jared Yeo, a Singapore native accepted to Yale-NUS, wrote on the college's blog.
Perhaps the most pointed critique of the New Haven protests came from E-Ching Ng, a Singaporean who earned an undergraduate degree at Yale and remained on campus to study linguistics. In a column in the Yale Daily News last spring, she urged faculty to respect the rules Singapore has developed to maintain public order.
"Qur'an burning is illegal in Singapore, and we like it that way," she wrote. "We prioritize our values differently, and different doesn't mean wrong. At least, that's what I learned from a Yale liberal arts education."
(Reporting By Stephanie Simon in New Haven. Additional reporting by Kevin Lim in Singapore. Editing by Jonathan Weber and Douglas Royalty.)
Sunday, December 30, 2012
Thursday, December 20, 2012
On Guns America Stands Out
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/20/opinion/blow-on-guns-america-stands-out.html?src=me&ref=general
CHARLES M. BLOW
Published: December 19, 2012
Sometimes I think the best argument is raw data. This is one of those times.
In the wake of the horrible school shooting in Connecticut and on the heels of politicians finally being smoked out into the open to talk seriously about sensible gun control policies, it’s important that we understand just how anomalous America is on the issues of guns and violence among developed countries. This table shows how shamefully we measure up against other countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Among the O.E.C.D. countries that the World Bank groups as “high income,” America has the highest gun homicide rate, the highest number of guns per capita and the highest rate of deaths due to assault. In fact, America has more homicides by gun than all of the other high-income O.E.C.D. countries combined.
It’s just shameful.
Looking for Lessons at Newtown
Looking for Lessons in Newtown
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
Published: December 19, 2012 476 Comments
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/20/opinion/kristof-looking-for-lessons-in-newtown.html?src=me&ref=general
After my column a few days ago urging tighter gun control, I faced incoming salvos from firearm enthusiasts. Let me respond to some of their arguments:
1. Don’t politicize the tragedy in Connecticut. This is a time for mourning, not for demonizing gun-owners.
Oh, come on! The president and Congress are supposed to address national problems — and every two months, we lose more Americans to gun violence than we did in the 9/11 attacks, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
A study by the Children’s Defense Fund found that we lose some 2,800 children and teenagers to guns annually.
That’s more than the number of American troops who have died in any year in Iraq and Afghanistan combined. More than twice as many preschoolers die annually from gun violence in America as law enforcement officers are killed in the line of duty.
So this is a time for mourning, yes, but it’s time for President Obama to display leadership as well as grief.
2. What happened in Newtown, Conn., was heartbreaking, but gun laws are feel-good measures that don’t make a difference. Norway has very restrictive gun laws, but it had its own massacre of 77 people.
It’s true that the 1994 assault weapons ban was not very effective, even before it expired (partly because it had trouble defining assault weapons, and partly because handguns kill more people than assault rifles). But if that law’s ban on the sale of high-capacity magazines had still been in effect, Adam Lanza, the gunman in Newtown, might have had to reload three times as often.
As for Norway, its laws did not prevent the massacre there last year. But, in a typical year, Norway has 10 or fewer gun murders. The United States has more than that in eight hours.
If people want to kill, you can’t stop them. Even a fork can be deadly. On the same day as the Connecticut tragedy, a man attacked 23 schoolchildren in China with a knife.
But, in the attack in China, not one of those children died. What makes guns different is their lethality. That’s why the military doesn’t arm our troops with forks.
Gun suicides (nearly 19,000 a year in the U.S.) outnumber gun murders (more than 11,000), and a gun in the home increases the risk that someone in the home will commit suicide. The reason is that suicide attempts with pills or razors often fail; with guns, they succeed. When Israel moved to have many soldiers store guns on base rather than at home, its military suicide rates plunged.
3. We have the Second Amendment, which protects our right to bear arms. So don’t talk about gun control!
There’s a reasonable argument that the Second Amendment confers an individual right — to bear a musket. Beyond that, it’s more complicated. Everybody agrees on a ban on fully automatic machine guns. The question isn’t whether to limit the right to bear arms, but where to draw the line.
I’d like to see us take a public health approach that reduces the harm that guns cause. We could limit gun purchases to one a month to impede traffickers, make serial numbers harder to file off, ban high-capacity magazines, finance gun buybacks, require solid background checks even for private gun sales, require microstamping so that bullet casings can be traced back to a particular gun and mandate that guns be stored in gun safes or with trigger locks.
And if you need to enter a code to operate your cellphone, why not to fire your gun?
4. If you were at home at night and heard creaking downstairs, wouldn’t you want a Glock in your night stand?
Frankly, at that moment, I might. And then I might creep downstairs and fire at a furtive figure in the darkened kitchen — perhaps my son returning from college to surprise the family. Or, God forbid, somebody who lives in the house might use the Glock to commit suicide.
The gun lobby often cites the work of John Lott, who argued that more guns mean less crime, but scholars have since thoroughly debunked Lott’s arguments. Published research makes it clear that having a gun in the home simply makes it more likely that you will be shot — by your partner or by yourself. Americans are safer if they rely on 911 for protection rather than on a gun.
Nancy Lanza is a case in point. She perhaps thought that her guns would keep her safe. But they were used to kill her and then schoolchildren.
As children were being rushed out of Sandy Hook Elementary School, they were told to cover their eyes. I hope we don’t do the same and blind ourselves to the lessons of this tragedy.
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
Published: December 19, 2012 476 Comments
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/20/opinion/kristof-looking-for-lessons-in-newtown.html?src=me&ref=general
After my column a few days ago urging tighter gun control, I faced incoming salvos from firearm enthusiasts. Let me respond to some of their arguments:
1. Don’t politicize the tragedy in Connecticut. This is a time for mourning, not for demonizing gun-owners.
Oh, come on! The president and Congress are supposed to address national problems — and every two months, we lose more Americans to gun violence than we did in the 9/11 attacks, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
A study by the Children’s Defense Fund found that we lose some 2,800 children and teenagers to guns annually.
That’s more than the number of American troops who have died in any year in Iraq and Afghanistan combined. More than twice as many preschoolers die annually from gun violence in America as law enforcement officers are killed in the line of duty.
So this is a time for mourning, yes, but it’s time for President Obama to display leadership as well as grief.
2. What happened in Newtown, Conn., was heartbreaking, but gun laws are feel-good measures that don’t make a difference. Norway has very restrictive gun laws, but it had its own massacre of 77 people.
It’s true that the 1994 assault weapons ban was not very effective, even before it expired (partly because it had trouble defining assault weapons, and partly because handguns kill more people than assault rifles). But if that law’s ban on the sale of high-capacity magazines had still been in effect, Adam Lanza, the gunman in Newtown, might have had to reload three times as often.
As for Norway, its laws did not prevent the massacre there last year. But, in a typical year, Norway has 10 or fewer gun murders. The United States has more than that in eight hours.
If people want to kill, you can’t stop them. Even a fork can be deadly. On the same day as the Connecticut tragedy, a man attacked 23 schoolchildren in China with a knife.
But, in the attack in China, not one of those children died. What makes guns different is their lethality. That’s why the military doesn’t arm our troops with forks.
Gun suicides (nearly 19,000 a year in the U.S.) outnumber gun murders (more than 11,000), and a gun in the home increases the risk that someone in the home will commit suicide. The reason is that suicide attempts with pills or razors often fail; with guns, they succeed. When Israel moved to have many soldiers store guns on base rather than at home, its military suicide rates plunged.
3. We have the Second Amendment, which protects our right to bear arms. So don’t talk about gun control!
There’s a reasonable argument that the Second Amendment confers an individual right — to bear a musket. Beyond that, it’s more complicated. Everybody agrees on a ban on fully automatic machine guns. The question isn’t whether to limit the right to bear arms, but where to draw the line.
I’d like to see us take a public health approach that reduces the harm that guns cause. We could limit gun purchases to one a month to impede traffickers, make serial numbers harder to file off, ban high-capacity magazines, finance gun buybacks, require solid background checks even for private gun sales, require microstamping so that bullet casings can be traced back to a particular gun and mandate that guns be stored in gun safes or with trigger locks.
And if you need to enter a code to operate your cellphone, why not to fire your gun?
4. If you were at home at night and heard creaking downstairs, wouldn’t you want a Glock in your night stand?
Frankly, at that moment, I might. And then I might creep downstairs and fire at a furtive figure in the darkened kitchen — perhaps my son returning from college to surprise the family. Or, God forbid, somebody who lives in the house might use the Glock to commit suicide.
The gun lobby often cites the work of John Lott, who argued that more guns mean less crime, but scholars have since thoroughly debunked Lott’s arguments. Published research makes it clear that having a gun in the home simply makes it more likely that you will be shot — by your partner or by yourself. Americans are safer if they rely on 911 for protection rather than on a gun.
Nancy Lanza is a case in point. She perhaps thought that her guns would keep her safe. But they were used to kill her and then schoolchildren.
As children were being rushed out of Sandy Hook Elementary School, they were told to cover their eyes. I hope we don’t do the same and blind ourselves to the lessons of this tragedy.
Tuesday, December 18, 2012
Do you hate things about Singapore so much that you’ll never migrate?
Do you hate things about Singapore so much that you’ll never migrate?
By Daniel Wong |
http://sg.news.yahoo.com/blogs/singaporescene/hate-things-singapore-much-ll-never-migrate-013400680.html
Yes, you read the title correctly. I do mean "hate", not "love".
(You'll understand what I mean by the end of the article.)
As Singaporeans, we complain about many things: the government, high COE and housing prices, foreign talent taking away our jobs… the list goes on.
We have to admit, though, that compared to most other countries we have it pretty good here in Singapore.
But I'm not here to talk about gratitude or about how things really aren't that bad or even about what the government could do better.
I'm here to talk about patriotism. National pride. Love for country.
Do you dream of migrating one day?
Let me start by asking you: If you had the means to, would you migrate to somewhere less stressful, say New Zealand or Australia?
I've talked to plenty of people who dream of the day when they can retire and leave Singapore for good.
I'm guessing that, like me, you too have wondered before about what life would be like if you lived elsewhere.
What we can learn from a courageous Iranian
Whether you're someone who has shrugged off those thoughts, or whether you're someone who entertains those thoughts daily, I'd like to tell you a story that might just help you to see this whole notion of national pride in a different light.
When I was studying in America a few years ago, I had the privilege of attending a talk by Shirin Ebadi, an Iranian lawyer, social activist and Nobel Peace Prize winner.
A truly outstanding woman!
In her talk, Ebadi described the lack of freedom and opportunities that Iranians face. She expressed anger toward what she viewed as human rights violations, which were taking place in Iran.
Ebadi went on to talk about the beauty of capitalism and democracy, which aren't present in Iran. She urged people living in democratic societies never to take their liberty for granted.
"I know where this talk is going," I thought. "She's going to tell us about what we can do to help Iranians and get them out of Iran and into Western countries."
"I'll never stop being an Iranian"
I couldn't have been more wrong.
Ebadi concluded her speech:
"Iran faces terrible problems. These problems are daunting, and there are no easy solutions.
"That's why I'm determined to make a difference. I'm going to give my everything to help Iran become a better place to live.
"Iran is my country and my home. I'll never stop being an Iranian."
Wow.
Ebadi loved Iran so much that even though she hated things about Iran, she would never willingly migrate. (Since June 2009, however, she has been in exile in the UK.)
Are you someone who can't wait to get out of Singapore?
When the speech was over, I started thinking about how an average Singaporean's outlook differs from Ebadi's.
A Singaporean might say, "It's so competitive here and it's so difficult to find a job. The cost of living is insane. And the government isn't doing enough for its citizens!"
What do you expect the person to say next?
Maybe something along these lines: "That's why I'm going to work hard, and when I have enough money I'm going to get out of here."
Obviously, not all Singaporeans think this way, but a significant proportion of the population does.
Love for food, love for country
I don't claim to know the exact reasons why there isn't an overwhelming sense of national pride among Singaporeans, but I do think it's worth noting how Singaporeans generally respond to the question, "What's the best thing about Singapore?"
"The food!" is usually the enthusiastic reply.
The diverse array of mouthwatering food that's available in Singapore is something to be thankful for, but it's troubling to me if the food really is the best thing about Singapore.
After all, I doubt that a shared love for nasi lemak, roti prata or bak chor mee will get us through a national crisis.
On the other hand, if you were to ask an American "What's the best thing about America?" you'll likely get this response: "Freedom, democracy and the opportunity to pursue your dreams."
(I know this to be largely true, because I lived in America for four years and I've asked many Americans that exact question.)
What describes us vs. what defines us
Why this stark difference?
I believe that it's because we Singaporeans, as a nation, haven't asked ourselves what we stand for.
We have yet to thoroughly examine what principles and values we hold dear, and neither have we developed a compelling, collective vision of the future.
We pride ourselves on being an efficiently run country, but efficiency is more an outcome than it is a core value.
Pragmatism—another trait that Singapore is renowned for—too is more a necessary mode of operation than it is an enduring principle on which to build a great country.
Our ability to be efficient and pragmatic is what describes us, but it doesn't define us.
We're defined by what we believe, by what we'll live for and what we'll die for.
A national and individual conversation about Singapore's future
It's encouraging that, at a societal level, we've started a national conversation about Singapore's future.
But there's work to be done at an individual level, too.
We need to decide how we want to contribute toward Singapore's destiny, and we need to decide what Singapore means to us.
Is Singapore just the place where we'll live and work?
Or is Singapore where we'll devote ourselves wholeheartedly to a cause greater than us, something that will go far beyond our lifetimes?
If it's the latter, then "Singaporean" won't just be our nationality. It will be our identity.
"Singaporean" won't just describe us. Instead, it will define us.
Pursuing your goals is easy, living out your values is hard
At both a personal and national level, it's easy to pursue your goals, but it's difficult to live out your values.
Living out your values requires that, first of all, you take a good look at yourself and ask yourself who you are, and who you want to become.
That takes time, energy and courage—and a people who are united and committed.
In closing…
I don't claim to be the most patriotic Singaporean around, but I do believe that our little red dot has an abundance of unfulfilled potential.
Together, let's become a people who love Singapore so much that, even if we hate things about Singapore, we won't think about migrating as the number one solution to our problems.
At the end of the day, national pride isn't mainly about feeling patriotic every 9th of August when the fireworks go off.
It's about intentionally and purposefully building a better Singapore the other 364 days of the year.
By Daniel Wong |
http://sg.news.yahoo.com/blogs/singaporescene/hate-things-singapore-much-ll-never-migrate-013400680.html
Yes, you read the title correctly. I do mean "hate", not "love".
(You'll understand what I mean by the end of the article.)
As Singaporeans, we complain about many things: the government, high COE and housing prices, foreign talent taking away our jobs… the list goes on.
We have to admit, though, that compared to most other countries we have it pretty good here in Singapore.
But I'm not here to talk about gratitude or about how things really aren't that bad or even about what the government could do better.
I'm here to talk about patriotism. National pride. Love for country.
Do you dream of migrating one day?
Let me start by asking you: If you had the means to, would you migrate to somewhere less stressful, say New Zealand or Australia?
I've talked to plenty of people who dream of the day when they can retire and leave Singapore for good.
I'm guessing that, like me, you too have wondered before about what life would be like if you lived elsewhere.
What we can learn from a courageous Iranian
Whether you're someone who has shrugged off those thoughts, or whether you're someone who entertains those thoughts daily, I'd like to tell you a story that might just help you to see this whole notion of national pride in a different light.
When I was studying in America a few years ago, I had the privilege of attending a talk by Shirin Ebadi, an Iranian lawyer, social activist and Nobel Peace Prize winner.
A truly outstanding woman!
In her talk, Ebadi described the lack of freedom and opportunities that Iranians face. She expressed anger toward what she viewed as human rights violations, which were taking place in Iran.
Ebadi went on to talk about the beauty of capitalism and democracy, which aren't present in Iran. She urged people living in democratic societies never to take their liberty for granted.
"I know where this talk is going," I thought. "She's going to tell us about what we can do to help Iranians and get them out of Iran and into Western countries."
"I'll never stop being an Iranian"
I couldn't have been more wrong.
Ebadi concluded her speech:
"Iran faces terrible problems. These problems are daunting, and there are no easy solutions.
"That's why I'm determined to make a difference. I'm going to give my everything to help Iran become a better place to live.
"Iran is my country and my home. I'll never stop being an Iranian."
Wow.
Ebadi loved Iran so much that even though she hated things about Iran, she would never willingly migrate. (Since June 2009, however, she has been in exile in the UK.)
Are you someone who can't wait to get out of Singapore?
When the speech was over, I started thinking about how an average Singaporean's outlook differs from Ebadi's.
A Singaporean might say, "It's so competitive here and it's so difficult to find a job. The cost of living is insane. And the government isn't doing enough for its citizens!"
What do you expect the person to say next?
Maybe something along these lines: "That's why I'm going to work hard, and when I have enough money I'm going to get out of here."
Obviously, not all Singaporeans think this way, but a significant proportion of the population does.
Love for food, love for country
I don't claim to know the exact reasons why there isn't an overwhelming sense of national pride among Singaporeans, but I do think it's worth noting how Singaporeans generally respond to the question, "What's the best thing about Singapore?"
"The food!" is usually the enthusiastic reply.
The diverse array of mouthwatering food that's available in Singapore is something to be thankful for, but it's troubling to me if the food really is the best thing about Singapore.
After all, I doubt that a shared love for nasi lemak, roti prata or bak chor mee will get us through a national crisis.
On the other hand, if you were to ask an American "What's the best thing about America?" you'll likely get this response: "Freedom, democracy and the opportunity to pursue your dreams."
(I know this to be largely true, because I lived in America for four years and I've asked many Americans that exact question.)
What describes us vs. what defines us
Why this stark difference?
I believe that it's because we Singaporeans, as a nation, haven't asked ourselves what we stand for.
We have yet to thoroughly examine what principles and values we hold dear, and neither have we developed a compelling, collective vision of the future.
We pride ourselves on being an efficiently run country, but efficiency is more an outcome than it is a core value.
Pragmatism—another trait that Singapore is renowned for—too is more a necessary mode of operation than it is an enduring principle on which to build a great country.
Our ability to be efficient and pragmatic is what describes us, but it doesn't define us.
We're defined by what we believe, by what we'll live for and what we'll die for.
A national and individual conversation about Singapore's future
It's encouraging that, at a societal level, we've started a national conversation about Singapore's future.
But there's work to be done at an individual level, too.
We need to decide how we want to contribute toward Singapore's destiny, and we need to decide what Singapore means to us.
Is Singapore just the place where we'll live and work?
Or is Singapore where we'll devote ourselves wholeheartedly to a cause greater than us, something that will go far beyond our lifetimes?
If it's the latter, then "Singaporean" won't just be our nationality. It will be our identity.
"Singaporean" won't just describe us. Instead, it will define us.
Pursuing your goals is easy, living out your values is hard
At both a personal and national level, it's easy to pursue your goals, but it's difficult to live out your values.
Living out your values requires that, first of all, you take a good look at yourself and ask yourself who you are, and who you want to become.
That takes time, energy and courage—and a people who are united and committed.
In closing…
I don't claim to be the most patriotic Singaporean around, but I do believe that our little red dot has an abundance of unfulfilled potential.
Together, let's become a people who love Singapore so much that, even if we hate things about Singapore, we won't think about migrating as the number one solution to our problems.
At the end of the day, national pride isn't mainly about feeling patriotic every 9th of August when the fireworks go off.
It's about intentionally and purposefully building a better Singapore the other 364 days of the year.
Saturday, December 15, 2012
Singapore Slings Arrows at Bank State Investment Company Presses U.K.'s Standard Chartered for Additional Independent Directors
Singapore Slings Arrows at Bank State Investment Company Presses U.K.'s Standard Chartered for Additional Independent Directors
Oct 3 2012
By P.R. VENKAT And DAVID ENRICH
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443768804578034210943017432.html
SINGAPORE—Temasek Holdings Pte. Ltd., the Singapore state investment company that is the biggest shareholder of Standard Chartered STAN.LN -0.23% PLC, has been expressing its discomfort with the bank's governance and is pressuring it to appoint more independent directors, people familiar with the investment company said.
Temasek, which owns an 18% stake in Standard Chartered, doesn't have any immediate plans to sell its shares in the bank, people familiar with the investment company said. To register its unhappiness with the bank, it abstained from voting for the re-election of the nonexecutive directors to the board in May, one of the people said
Standard Chartered is based in London but does most of its business in emerging markets and has a significant operation in Singapore, including the headquarters of its private bank. It is one of the few banks that continued to expand through the financial crisis, and it has stepped up lending in Asia as other banks have pulled back.
But the bank was blindsided over the summer by accusations from a New York regulator that it violated U.S. trade sanctions by hiding more than $250 billion of transactions with Iranian customers. Its shares plunged 20% on the news but have since recovered. The bank reached a $340 million settlement last month and remains under investigation by other U.S. regulators in the case.
The Singaporean investment company first bought shares in Standard Chartered in March 2006, and investment bankers have been approaching it for years trying to arrange a deal to sell the stake. Temasek would seek a premium to the current share price for its stake in the bank, people familiar with the Singapore company's thinking say, adding that Temasek is still a "very long way off" from "a willing buyer, willing seller" situation.
A person close to Standard Chartered said the dispute stems from Temasek's desire for the bank to have a supervisory board consisting of just one Standard Chartered executive, with the rest of the board made up of independent directors. Standard Chartered views this arrangement as incompatible with British governance rules, this person said. "It's a difference of opinion that's long been there," the person said.
Standard Chartered has been considered an attractive takeover candidate because of its presence in fast-growing markets and its strong balance sheet. But the bank's relatively high valuation has made that less likely.
Even acquiring a large stake, such as Temasek's 18% position valued at $9.7 billion, could be difficult for another bank to pull off. A new set of rules governing bank balance sheets, known as the Basel III accord, requires banks to stockpile large quantities of capital if they hold minority ownership stakes in other financial institutions. The rules, which take effect gradually over coming years, already have prompted many large banks to ditch minority stakes in other institutions. Bankers and analysts say they are a powerful deterrent against acquiring additional stakes.
Standard Chartered last week announced that it will appoint four new independent, nonexecutive directors, but a person familiar with Temasek's thinking said the company hopes the bank will move further. Two of the independent directors will join the board in November and the other two will join in January.
A Standard Chartered spokesman said last week's board changes were part of a long-awaited "succession exercise" that has been in the works for more than a year and didn't stem from shareholder pressure.
Before last week's announcement, 10 of the bank's 16 board members were independent, and it is unclear whether the ratio will change with the new appointments. The bank said last week that the "overall size of the board will remain broadly in line with current levels" but added that additional board changes will be announced by the bank's 2013 annual meeting in May.
One of the people familiar with Temasek said the investment company would like to see fewer executive directors at Standard Chartered.
The number of executive directors at the bank has climbed from four to six since 2007, while the number of independent directors has stayed the same. While Temasek abstained from voting for re-election of the bank's independent directors in May, it did vote to re-elect Chief Executive Peter Sands, according to people familiar with the situation.
As a matter of policy, Temasek doesn't hold board seats in the companies in which it invests. But it is placing a new emphasis on governance. In its latest annual report released in July, Temasek added a section about governance: "To provide effective oversight of management on behalf of all shareholders, we advocate that boards be independent of management. We do not support excessive numbers of executive members on company boards."
Temasek doesn't specify what it is seeking in the makeup of a company board, but two of its biggest holdings have a higher ratio of independent directors than Standard Chartered. Singapore bank DBS Group Holdings Ltd., D05.SG +0.27% in which Temasek holds a 30% stake, has seven independent directors including the chairman on its nine-member board, while Singapore Telecommunications, Z74.SG +0.30% or SingTel, which is about 52% owned by Temasek, has seven independent directors on its 10-member board.
Another big U.K.-based bank, HSBC Holdings HSBA.LN -0.28% PLC, in which Temasek doesn't hold a stake, has a 16-member board of which 13 are nonexecutive, independent directors.
Oct 3 2012
By P.R. VENKAT And DAVID ENRICH
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443768804578034210943017432.html
SINGAPORE—Temasek Holdings Pte. Ltd., the Singapore state investment company that is the biggest shareholder of Standard Chartered STAN.LN -0.23% PLC, has been expressing its discomfort with the bank's governance and is pressuring it to appoint more independent directors, people familiar with the investment company said.
Temasek, which owns an 18% stake in Standard Chartered, doesn't have any immediate plans to sell its shares in the bank, people familiar with the investment company said. To register its unhappiness with the bank, it abstained from voting for the re-election of the nonexecutive directors to the board in May, one of the people said
Standard Chartered is based in London but does most of its business in emerging markets and has a significant operation in Singapore, including the headquarters of its private bank. It is one of the few banks that continued to expand through the financial crisis, and it has stepped up lending in Asia as other banks have pulled back.
But the bank was blindsided over the summer by accusations from a New York regulator that it violated U.S. trade sanctions by hiding more than $250 billion of transactions with Iranian customers. Its shares plunged 20% on the news but have since recovered. The bank reached a $340 million settlement last month and remains under investigation by other U.S. regulators in the case.
The Singaporean investment company first bought shares in Standard Chartered in March 2006, and investment bankers have been approaching it for years trying to arrange a deal to sell the stake. Temasek would seek a premium to the current share price for its stake in the bank, people familiar with the Singapore company's thinking say, adding that Temasek is still a "very long way off" from "a willing buyer, willing seller" situation.
A person close to Standard Chartered said the dispute stems from Temasek's desire for the bank to have a supervisory board consisting of just one Standard Chartered executive, with the rest of the board made up of independent directors. Standard Chartered views this arrangement as incompatible with British governance rules, this person said. "It's a difference of opinion that's long been there," the person said.
Standard Chartered has been considered an attractive takeover candidate because of its presence in fast-growing markets and its strong balance sheet. But the bank's relatively high valuation has made that less likely.
Even acquiring a large stake, such as Temasek's 18% position valued at $9.7 billion, could be difficult for another bank to pull off. A new set of rules governing bank balance sheets, known as the Basel III accord, requires banks to stockpile large quantities of capital if they hold minority ownership stakes in other financial institutions. The rules, which take effect gradually over coming years, already have prompted many large banks to ditch minority stakes in other institutions. Bankers and analysts say they are a powerful deterrent against acquiring additional stakes.
Standard Chartered last week announced that it will appoint four new independent, nonexecutive directors, but a person familiar with Temasek's thinking said the company hopes the bank will move further. Two of the independent directors will join the board in November and the other two will join in January.
A Standard Chartered spokesman said last week's board changes were part of a long-awaited "succession exercise" that has been in the works for more than a year and didn't stem from shareholder pressure.
Before last week's announcement, 10 of the bank's 16 board members were independent, and it is unclear whether the ratio will change with the new appointments. The bank said last week that the "overall size of the board will remain broadly in line with current levels" but added that additional board changes will be announced by the bank's 2013 annual meeting in May.
One of the people familiar with Temasek said the investment company would like to see fewer executive directors at Standard Chartered.
The number of executive directors at the bank has climbed from four to six since 2007, while the number of independent directors has stayed the same. While Temasek abstained from voting for re-election of the bank's independent directors in May, it did vote to re-elect Chief Executive Peter Sands, according to people familiar with the situation.
As a matter of policy, Temasek doesn't hold board seats in the companies in which it invests. But it is placing a new emphasis on governance. In its latest annual report released in July, Temasek added a section about governance: "To provide effective oversight of management on behalf of all shareholders, we advocate that boards be independent of management. We do not support excessive numbers of executive members on company boards."
Temasek doesn't specify what it is seeking in the makeup of a company board, but two of its biggest holdings have a higher ratio of independent directors than Standard Chartered. Singapore bank DBS Group Holdings Ltd., D05.SG +0.27% in which Temasek holds a 30% stake, has seven independent directors including the chairman on its nine-member board, while Singapore Telecommunications, Z74.SG +0.30% or SingTel, which is about 52% owned by Temasek, has seven independent directors on its 10-member board.
Another big U.K.-based bank, HSBC Holdings HSBA.LN -0.28% PLC, in which Temasek doesn't hold a stake, has a 16-member board of which 13 are nonexecutive, independent directors.
Temasek Sells Down Thai Telecom Asset At Loss
Temasek Sells Down Thai Telecom Asset At Loss
http://www.forbes.com/sites/simonmontlake/2011/08/19/temasek-sells-down-thai-telecom-asset-at-loss/
Wall Street 8/19/2011 @ 4:56AM
Interesting news today that Singapore’s sovereign wealth fund has offloaded shares in Shin Corp, its major Thai asset, at a substantial loss. Temasek Holdings sold around 8% of Shin Corp for 36 baht a share, yielding $308 million, a substantial discount to the market price, according to Reuters:
"Temasek’s stake sale comes just over a month after the Puea Thai Party led by Yingluck Shinawatra, the sister of self-exiled Thaksin, won a general election in a landslide. She became the prime minister this month."
The sale of Shin Corp’s controlling stake by Thaksin’s family in 2006 triggered the events that led to his overthrow by the military in September that year.
The news of Cedar stake sale sent Shin Corp shares down more than 6 percent as investors worried that Temasek may sell more Shin shares at a discount. At 0509 GMT, the shares were at 38.25 baht, down 4.4 percent.
The 36 baht offer price is a 10 percent discount to Shin’s Wednesday close of 40 baht.
It is also a significant discount from the 49.25 baht a share that Temasek-linked units paid in 2006 to purchase a controlling stake in Shin Corp from the family of Thaksin Shinawatra.
Temasek may have decided to cut its losses as Thailand’s telecoms sector is hopelessly tangled in political and regulatory battles that have delayed the introduction of 3G, even as other Asian countries embrace 4G. Its placement of shares in the market will raise the free float of Shin, whose major asset is AIS, Thailand’s largest mobile operator. Investors don’t bother with the stock as there is so little liquidity.
But it doesn’t end the controversy over foreign ownership of Thai telecoms, which is supposed to be capped at 49%. Temasek still controls 88% of Shin Corp via two affiliates. Its largest competitor DTAC is controlled by Norway’s Telenor. Both are trying to launch full-scale 3G services, even as politicians and bureaucrats squabble over who has the regulatory authority. AIS remains hugely profitable, for all the political noise. 2Q net profit was up 26% on the year-earlier period.
SingTel ups direct stake in AIS by 2%
7 Nov 2011
http://www.telegeography.com/products/commsupdate/articles/2011/11/07/singtel-ups-direct-stake-in-ais-by-2/
Singapore Telecom (SingTel) has agreed to increase its direct stake in Thailand’s leading cellco Advanced Info Service (AIS) from 21.27% to 23.32% at a cost of up to THB7.9 billion (USD255 million). Singapore-controlled, Thai-based conglomerate Shin Corp has agreed to sell 61 million shares on the Thai stock exchange representing a 2.05% stake in AIS. The move to grab an additional 2.05% of AIS is aimed at maximising value from SingTel’s existing stakes in affiliated telecoms operators in countries including Thailand, India (Bharti Airtel), Indonesia (Telkomsel) and Pakistan (Warid Telecom). If approved by regulatory authorities and stakeholders, the shares will be acquired through a subsidiary, SingTel Strategic Investments, at a price set at THB7.3 billion-THB7.9 billion.
TeleGeography’s GlobalComms Database notes that Singapore has a much larger controlling interest in AIS than SingTel’s direct stake would suggest. AIS is currently owned by Shin Corp (42.6%) and SingTel (just under 21.3%), with 36.1% in free float, but Singapore’s government investment arm Temasek Holdings has a 42% stake in Shin Corp via Thai-registered Aspen Holdings, and also owns 55% of SingTel. Temasek’s other shares in Shin Corp are held through a nominee structure to keep direct foreign shareholdings under the 49% legal limit; when the Singaporean investor took over the Thai group it took indirect control of around 54% of Shin’s largest stakeholder Cedar Holdings, but unloaded some stock to Thai funds to meet stock exchange regulations dictating that listed companies must maintain a free float of at least 15%. AIS effectively fell into foreign hands in January 2006 when the family of Thaksin Shinawatra sold its 49.59% stake in Shin Corp to Temasek in a tax-free deal worth THB73.3 billion, and Temasek went on to gain over 96% of Shin through a mandatory share offer. The deal stoked up fierce public resentment towards the then-prime minster for offloading Thai assets to an overseas government. In the run-up to Thailand’s military coup in September 2006, political action groups urged the boycotting of AIS, causing a slowdown in its customer take-up rate lasting a number of months
http://www.forbes.com/sites/simonmontlake/2011/08/19/temasek-sells-down-thai-telecom-asset-at-loss/
Wall Street 8/19/2011 @ 4:56AM
Interesting news today that Singapore’s sovereign wealth fund has offloaded shares in Shin Corp, its major Thai asset, at a substantial loss. Temasek Holdings sold around 8% of Shin Corp for 36 baht a share, yielding $308 million, a substantial discount to the market price, according to Reuters:
"Temasek’s stake sale comes just over a month after the Puea Thai Party led by Yingluck Shinawatra, the sister of self-exiled Thaksin, won a general election in a landslide. She became the prime minister this month."
The sale of Shin Corp’s controlling stake by Thaksin’s family in 2006 triggered the events that led to his overthrow by the military in September that year.
The news of Cedar stake sale sent Shin Corp shares down more than 6 percent as investors worried that Temasek may sell more Shin shares at a discount. At 0509 GMT, the shares were at 38.25 baht, down 4.4 percent.
The 36 baht offer price is a 10 percent discount to Shin’s Wednesday close of 40 baht.
It is also a significant discount from the 49.25 baht a share that Temasek-linked units paid in 2006 to purchase a controlling stake in Shin Corp from the family of Thaksin Shinawatra.
Temasek may have decided to cut its losses as Thailand’s telecoms sector is hopelessly tangled in political and regulatory battles that have delayed the introduction of 3G, even as other Asian countries embrace 4G. Its placement of shares in the market will raise the free float of Shin, whose major asset is AIS, Thailand’s largest mobile operator. Investors don’t bother with the stock as there is so little liquidity.
But it doesn’t end the controversy over foreign ownership of Thai telecoms, which is supposed to be capped at 49%. Temasek still controls 88% of Shin Corp via two affiliates. Its largest competitor DTAC is controlled by Norway’s Telenor. Both are trying to launch full-scale 3G services, even as politicians and bureaucrats squabble over who has the regulatory authority. AIS remains hugely profitable, for all the political noise. 2Q net profit was up 26% on the year-earlier period.
SingTel ups direct stake in AIS by 2%
7 Nov 2011
http://www.telegeography.com/products/commsupdate/articles/2011/11/07/singtel-ups-direct-stake-in-ais-by-2/
Singapore Telecom (SingTel) has agreed to increase its direct stake in Thailand’s leading cellco Advanced Info Service (AIS) from 21.27% to 23.32% at a cost of up to THB7.9 billion (USD255 million). Singapore-controlled, Thai-based conglomerate Shin Corp has agreed to sell 61 million shares on the Thai stock exchange representing a 2.05% stake in AIS. The move to grab an additional 2.05% of AIS is aimed at maximising value from SingTel’s existing stakes in affiliated telecoms operators in countries including Thailand, India (Bharti Airtel), Indonesia (Telkomsel) and Pakistan (Warid Telecom). If approved by regulatory authorities and stakeholders, the shares will be acquired through a subsidiary, SingTel Strategic Investments, at a price set at THB7.3 billion-THB7.9 billion.
TeleGeography’s GlobalComms Database notes that Singapore has a much larger controlling interest in AIS than SingTel’s direct stake would suggest. AIS is currently owned by Shin Corp (42.6%) and SingTel (just under 21.3%), with 36.1% in free float, but Singapore’s government investment arm Temasek Holdings has a 42% stake in Shin Corp via Thai-registered Aspen Holdings, and also owns 55% of SingTel. Temasek’s other shares in Shin Corp are held through a nominee structure to keep direct foreign shareholdings under the 49% legal limit; when the Singaporean investor took over the Thai group it took indirect control of around 54% of Shin’s largest stakeholder Cedar Holdings, but unloaded some stock to Thai funds to meet stock exchange regulations dictating that listed companies must maintain a free float of at least 15%. AIS effectively fell into foreign hands in January 2006 when the family of Thaksin Shinawatra sold its 49.59% stake in Shin Corp to Temasek in a tax-free deal worth THB73.3 billion, and Temasek went on to gain over 96% of Shin through a mandatory share offer. The deal stoked up fierce public resentment towards the then-prime minster for offloading Thai assets to an overseas government. In the run-up to Thailand’s military coup in September 2006, political action groups urged the boycotting of AIS, causing a slowdown in its customer take-up rate lasting a number of months
Singapore Air Rises After Virgin Sale: Singapore Mover By David Fickling
Singapore Air Rises After Virgin Sale: Singapore Mover
By David Fickling - Dec 12, 2012 6:51 PM GMT+0800
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-12/singapore-air-rises-after-virgin-sale-singapore-mover.html?cmpid=ysing
Singapore Airlines Ltd. (SIA) rose to the highest in almost three months on the city’s stock exchange after agreeing to sell its stake in Virgin Atlantic to Delta Air Lines Inc. (DAL)
Delta will buy the 49 percent shareholding for $360 million, according to a stock exchange filling late yesterday. Singapore Air will book an S$322 million ($264 million) gain from the sale, after accounting for a writedown in its investment in the U.K. carrier controlled by billionaire Richard Branson.
Singapore Air is exiting Virgin after more than a decade as it sharpens its focus on faster-growing Asia-Pacific markets. The carrier has ordered 54 Boeing Co. (BA) 737 planes to double the size of regional unit SilkAir and bought a stake in Virgin Australia Holdings Ltd. (VAH), that nation’s second-largest carrier.
“We are positive on the deal as it helps unlock the hidden value from a long-held asset,” Morgan Stanley analysts Edward Xu and Chin Ser Lee said in a note to investors. The Virgin investment has “yielded limited returns and synergies.”
Singapore Air, which already has more than S$4 billion of cash in hand, may use the sale proceeds for a special dividend, share buyback or investment in other carriers, the analysts said. It could also use the funds as buffer against capital spending plans totaling about S$6.75 billion, they said.
The airline rose 1.1 percent to close at S$10.87, the highest since Sept. 21. The benchmark Straits Times Index gained 0.8 percent.
‘Not Performed’
Singapore Air bought the stake for S$1.65 billion, Germaine Shen, a spokeswoman, said by e-mail.
The investment “has not performed to expectations,” the carrier said yesterday. “The synergies the parties originally hoped for have not materialized.”
The airline expects to maintain commercial ties with Virgin, such as codeshares and frequent-flier tie-ups.
Delta, based in Atlanta, is buying the Virgin stake to increase its presence on lucrative trans-Atlantic routes. The two carriers intend to begin a joint venture on 31 daily round- trip flights between North America and the U.K. taking advantage of Virgin’s base at London’s Heathrow airport, Europe’s busiest.
Singapore Airlines puts focus on Asia after selling Virgin Atlantic stake
Date
December 13, 2012
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/travel/travel-news/singapore-airlines-puts-focus-on-asia-after-selling-virgin-atlantic-stake-20121213-2bc6m.html#ixzz2F9q3Qvde
Singapore Airlines' sale of its 49-per cent stake in Virgin Atlantic will allow the cash-rich Asian carrier to focus resources on its fast-growing regional market, analysts said Wednesday.
The Singapore carrier's tie-up with British billionaire Richard Branson's Virgin Atlantic never really took off since the alliance began 12 years ago when the stake was bought for 600 million pounds ($A918 million).
Singapore Airlines (SIA) on Tuesday said it will sell the stake to Delta Air Lines of the United States for $US360 million ($A341 million) in cash in a deal to be completed next year.
SIA said it "had been evaluating strategic options for the stake for some time, as the investment has not performed to expectations and the synergies the parties originally hoped for have not materialised."
Analysts said SIA, consistently one of the world's most profitable airlines, had little say in how Virgin Atlantic was run by the flamboyant Branson, and the sale allows it to exit an underperforming investment in the troubled European market.
"SIA can now focus on investments in the Asia Pacific region," Brendan Sobie, a Singapore-based analyst with industry consultancy Centre for Aviation, said.
Sobie said it made more sense for Delta to have a strategic stake in Virgin Atlantic as there are more synergies in their trans-Atlantic network.
Jason Hughes, an analyst with IG Markets Singapore, said that despite the higher acquisition price paid by SIA, the $US360 million "will go down as a profit, as losses had already been accounted for in previous years".
Malaysian bank CIMB said in a note that the sale would give SIA a "short-term boost" but urged investors to focus on the long-term challenges posed by Middle Eastern carriers and budget airlines.
Shukor Yusof, an aviation analyst with Standard & Poor's Equity Research, said SIA can use the extra cash to "redefine its business strategy on top of beefing up its regional subsidiaries".
"It's also good to exit out of Europe because the market conditions there are quite atrocious," he said.
Shukor said conflicting management styles with Branson was one of the chief reasons why the alliance failed to prosper beyond a code-sharing agreement.
"Branson remained the controlling shareholder and he called the shots," he said.
Virgin Atlantic also did not have enough slots at London's high-traffic Heathrow airport for SIA to latch on in its bid to gain a share of the lucrative trans-Atlantic route to New York, Shukor added.
Analysts said SIA's decision to buy the stake in Virgin Atlantic in March 2000 was a good move at the time because Asia was just emerging from the 1997-1998 financial crisis.
But the centre of global economic power has since shifted to Asia, sparking a travel boom in the region.
Passenger traffic in the Asia Pacific is forecast to account for 33 percent of the global market in 2016, up from 29 percent in 2011, according to trade body International Air Transport Association (IATA).
"This makes the region the largest regional market for air transport, ahead of North America and Europe which each represent 21 percent," IATA said in a statement on their latest industry forecast.
SIA has been investing both in the premium travel segment, where it faces competition from Middle East carriers, and in the low-cost market where it is challenged by budget airlines.
SIA in June launched a long-haul budget wing called Scoot while maintaining a substantial stake in low-fare carrier Tiger Airways. It also operates a regional wing, SilkAir.
SIA and Scoot in October announced orders for 45 Airbus and Boeing aircraft. The orders came after SilkAir in August said it would buy 54 new Boeing planes with an option to buy a further 14 aircraft.
AFP
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)