The Singapore Grand Prix- Boom or Boondoggle?

With breathtaking panoramas and sceneries located at every nook and cranny of the Singapore Grand Prix circuit, the Singapore Grand Prix presents an impeccable picture of a dream race taking place beneath the stars of the night sky.

Recognising the economic potential inherent in Singapore’s unique street circuit, Julian Lim lucidly expounds the multitudes of benefits brought about by Singapore’s first Formula One race in decades.

Unequivocally, the Singapore Grand Prix is expected to give a strong boost to Singapore’s tourism sector, generating incremental tourism receipts of about S$100 million a year. With the great influx of visitors, hotels, night spots, and many other groups will benefit from the Singapore Grand Prix. The “hive of activity” manifested is also expected to add vibrancy to Singapore as a global city and business centre.

As Singapore strives to become the global hub of trade and business, the Singapore Grand Prix serves as an important step towards gaining the confidence of investors and companies worldwide. This also serves as an opportunity for Multi-National Companies and private wealth management industries to procure benefits for their clients and businesses.

Nevertheless, despite the multitudinous economical benefits of the Singapore Grand Prix, several problems might subvert its status as an “economical boom.”

Firstly, the materialisation of such high-profile events could have detrimental effects on consumers- especially those of a lower economic status.

Based on the relationship between demand and supply in economics, the Singapore Grand Prix is expected to raise the prices of goods and services dramatically over time. This makes it less affordable for consumers throughout Singapore, and limits the expenditure to that of tourists and expatriates. This leaves the economy overly-dependent on foreigners.

With the natural tendency for economies to correct themselves back to equilibrium, the economy will experience sharp devaluations and downturns following the Singapore grand Prix.

Aside from this, preparations before the Grand Prix might cause a major disruption of traffic, affecting stakeholders and companies throughout the area.

Indubitably, it is of paramount importance for the government to consider the common man amidst the glitz and glamour of the Singapore Grand Prix. While tourists and expatriates do contribute a large sum of money to the economy, the local population must not be left out of the buzz.

One way of doing this is by reducing the price of tickets. Owing to the large number of reservations for VIPs and expatriates, the high demand for tickets would most certainly raise prices sharply. Considering the fact that Formula One is hardly as popular as football in this country, more steps must therefore be taken to draw locals out to fill the stands.

Being only a secondary school student, my comments on the economical aspects of the Singapore Grand Prix does have its limitations. Aside from this, my views are solely based on generalisations derived from my own personal perspective, leaving several blindspots within my argument. Adding on to the fact that I am not a fan of Formula One, my views may also be biased and prejudiced.

See article at:

http://motoring.asiaone.com.sg/news/20070511_001.html

Labour Discrimination- Fact or Fiction?

Exasperated by unfair dismissals and rejected job applications, angry workers are smothering the Ministry of Manpower with complaints about labour discrimination.

Through a thought-provoking argument elucidating Singapore’s “lack of teeth” in tackling this problem, Derrick A Paulo espouses the legislation of strict laws as an effective and efficient means of curbing labour discrimination.

So what’s the significance of this?

With the implementation of the writer’s view, companies practising job discrimination would be effectively sanctioned by the government. As mentioned by the writer, such measures are “enough to enact sustainable change”, without the ineffective methods of employer exhortation, persuasion, and “fair-employment programmes”.

On a bigger scale, such measures can improve the economy considerably.

The effective removal of job discrimination in Singapore would come a long way in encouraging and promoting fair competition among employees. With greater competition, workers would be forced to improve themselves and work harder; thereby improving the country’s working productivity and quality.

Besides this, the implementation of strict measures also comes in line with Singapore’s foreign talent scheme. With fairer employment schemes, more skilled foreigners would be attracted to Singapore, greatly boosting Singapore’s economy. Ironically, however, the writer states that “When Singaporeans are sent the proper signals of assurance that there will be a fair deal at the workplace, foreigners are also more likely to get a warmer welcome and their contributions valued more.”

Nevertheless, the implementation of new laws might not be necessary, owing to several reasons.

Firstly, the implementation of strict laws might expose companies to abuse. Employers, for example, might launch frivolous legal claims against companies with the charge of labour discrimination, despite their possible lack of aptitude. Such legal claims might damage a company’s reputation unnecessarily, and have a cumulative effect in retarding the country’s economical progress. This might also discourage foreign companies from investing in Singapore,

Secondly, the presence of too many grey areas and doubts have made it difficult for authorities to affirm this problem. With only 180 complaints launched against MOM last year, the problem may not be significant enough for laws to be enacted. Aside from this, existing measures might already be adequate in protecting individuals from labour discrimination. Section 14 of the Employment Act and the Retirement Age Act, for example, provides avenues for workers to seek redress for unfair dismissal or job termination based on age.

Perhaps a novel measure that can be implemented is the mandatory removal of one’s particulars (in application forms), when applications are being sent to personnel who shortlist candidates. Such a practice ensures that candidates are shortlisted purely on their merit, effectively removing job discrimination, without incurring frivolous legal claims.

Having little experience in the job market itself, I may be unaware of other factors that might be of paramount importance to the above issue. My views hold assumptions that the present measures implemented are adequate and efficient, and may therefore have its limitations and blindspots. Having not been in the shoes of workers suffering from labour discrimination, my views might therefore be prejudiced and biased.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Article

The flaw is no law
http://www.todayonline.com/articles/188527.asp
Unlike legal codes, guidelines lack teeth to free workers from discrimination � News Comment

Tuesday � May 15, 2007


Derrick A Paulo
derrick@mediacorp.com.sg

When it comes to fighting labour discrimination, Singapore prefers to tread lightly.

The latest sequel to the trilogy on combating workplace discrimination � following the update of the 1999 guidelines on job advertisements, a code for responsible employment practices in 2002, and guidelines for pro-family practices in 2004 � is yet another set of guidelines.

Race, religion, gender and marital status are all "don'ts" for job application forms, according to guidelines issued two weeks ago by the Tripartite Alliance for Fair Employment Practices. These, however, are only "practical" tips for bosses, as the alliance said. Once again, legislation will not be introduced.

But shouldn't it be introduced, in order to better deal with the problem of discrimination?

The planned Tripartite Centre for Fair Employment is designed to advise employers keen to adopt such practices � in other words, the converted. The same type of employers as the 420 so far, including 59 from the public sector, that have pledged to implement fair employment practices.

It is easy to preach to the converted. But what about the remaining 133,000 small and medium-sized enterprises?

While the 180 employment-related discrimination cases that the Manpower Ministry (MOM) received in the past three years is not an excessively large number in a labour force of more than 2 million, job discrimination appears to be on the rise.

The incidence of pregnant workers complaining of unfair dismissal has doubled since three years ago. In all probability, there is a fair number of silent sufferers out there who chose not to, or did not know how to, lodge a complaint.

A survey last year by global staffing solutions firm Kelly Services ranked Singapore one of the three countries, out of 28, with the highest rates of workplace discrimination. Two-thirds of the 1,500 respondents polled here complained of having experienced prejudice of some sort when applying for a job in the past five years. They cited age as the top factor (29 per cent).

Even if these are mere perceptions, the bulk of which an MOM investigation could well find to be unsubstantiated, they affect the sustainability of Singapore's social stability, which can only need more attention, especially since our population of 4.5 million is set to grow.

Singaporeans should not have to look at the job market � and their career prospects � through the lens of discrimination. When Singaporeans are sent the proper signals of assurance that there will be a fair deal at the workplace, foreigners are also more likely to get a warmer welcome and their contributions valued more.

If all the authorities do is exhort employers, promote programmes and set up one centre, their efforts can only go so far. Legislation can help, if we can be flexible, creative and selective.

During the Committee of Supply debate in March, Nominated Member of Parliament Eunice Olsen suggested using a voluntary compliance agreement (VCA) to change unfair hiring practices.

A VCA is a mechanism now used to tackle unfair trading practices under the Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act. When errant traders sign a VCA, they admit to carrying out unfair trading practices, agree to stop such practices, and make the necessary remedies to affected consumers.

Only refusal to do so or a breach of the VCA gives the Consumers Association of Singapore (Case) the option to seek a ruling from the courts. And penalties apply only when a company incurs the court's contempt by failing to adhere to its ruling.

Replace trader with employer, Case with MOM or an equal employment panel, and consumer with employee to get a helpful piece of legislation to fight job discrimination.

Current legislation, such as section 14 of the Employment Act and the Retirement Age Act, provides only avenues for workers to seek redress for unfair dismissal or job termination based on age, respectively.

The MOM can also take up cases to seek individual remedies, but this is certainly not the best way to empower a state to effect sustainable, long-term change.

An employment VCA will help. It is more likely to get employers with unfair practices to stick out like a sore thumb than if 0.003 per cent of companies � or more � pledge to be fair employers.

"This is about educating employers and having the teeth to back it up � And it is done without incurring frivolous legal claims, as only MOM, after a fair assessment, can take legal action," Ms Olsen said. She suggested homing in on hiring practices before deciding if the VCA is suitable for discrimination in training prospects, promotion benefits and retrenchment bias.

There was no reply to her suggestion. Instead, we were told about guidelines, the tripartite centre and pledges.

If such measures are enough to enact sustainable change, why do we not depend solely on persuasion, such as in intellectual property, to uphold IP protection? Why have coercive laws to deter infringements and piracy?

It is not about the numbers. The Government is drafting laws to make sex with minors overseas a prosecutable offence here, even though only three Singaporeans have been caught since 1994 for such acts.

The answer is simple. When applied to fair employment, not to legislate is to close an eye to discriminatory practices.

Climate Change- An Inevitable Guillotine?

The verdict is out.

After months of intense study and research, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has pronounced humans 90% guilty of causing Climate Change.

The writer’s message: Climate Change is real, and if nothing is done to stop this, serious consequences might surface in the near future.

Trapped in a time when the effects of global warming manifest at a global scale, much debate has arisen over whether Global Warming is worth fighting.

While there is no doubt that Climate Change is affecting the world, one question comes to mind: Is fighting Climate Change feasible?

One of the assumptions made, is that every country has the ability to take immediate action against climate change. However, this is not true. Developing countries, for example, lack the technology and money to make wholesale or partial conversions to cleaner energy fuels.[1] Others, often rely on their “global warming” activities, such as logging and deforestation, for the bulk of their gross domestic product.[2] Fighting climate change might only give them more social and financial problems. Considering that developing countries make up the majority of the world, fighting climate change on a global scale might be highly unfeasible.

Perhaps a novel way of viewing this issue might be to look upon fighting climate change as an economically-friendly venture. The following flowchart explains this:

Having seen the effects of Climate Change for himself, the writer understands that Climate Change is a serious issue that affects both humanity and the environment. He juxtaposes the world’s situation to that of “thin ice”, which not only refers to the melting polar ice caps, but also the precarious situation that Global Warming has put us into.

Countering claims that fighting climate change hamstrings economic development, the writer ironically points out that the effects of global warming have adverse consequences on the economy, as shown in the financial crisis postulated for India in paragraph 24.[1]

The writer believes that every effort must be taken to fight climate change, no matter how small it is. By putting Climate Change in a global context, the writer reasons inductively that fighting climate change necessitates a global effort. Steps have to be taken to reduce carbon emissions by imposing laws limiting greenhouse gas emissions, improving energy efficiency, and searching for alternative energy sources. If countries from all over the world put worldly benefits over personal gains, and work together to fight climate change, Climate Change can be stopped.

As individuals, we too must do our part in cutting our greenhouse-gas-footprint, by practicing simple habits such as turning off unused electrical appliances, using energy-efficient appliances, taking public transport and practicing the 3Rs- recycle, reuse, and reduce.

Being a student studying Geography, my views may favour the general consensus that Global Warming is worth fighting. Having not worked in the government before, I may be unaware of the concerns and problems that governments have in the fight against global warming. My lack of knowledge in the subject also puts limitations on my understanding of the issue.
[1] “Climate Change is affecting our lives”

See article at:

http://singaporespices.blogspot.com/2007/02/climate-change-already-affects-lives.html

Section before the picture

[1]“China’s sticking to coal”- At present, China is sticking to coal despite experiencing the warmest February on record, and being the second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases in the world. This is because coal accounts for 70% of its energy needs, making it financially and technologically unfeasible for China to switch to cleaner fuels.
[2] Brazil and Indonesia, for example, often engage in logging, for wood, agriculture, and cattle-ranching.

Biomed Wars Episode 2- Dr Lee Strikes Back

With only 5 years of experience in the Biomedical Industry, Singapore is relatively new in this sector. Yet, much disagreement has already manifested over Singapore’s biomedical sector’s (BMS) strategy.

At present, the Government’s BMS strategy involves undertaking research in a wide spectrum of biomedical fields. Some, such as Dr Lee, believe that Singapore is fighting the campaign on too many fronts.

His message: Singapore’s limited resources are spread too thinly over wide areas of research. Singapore should focus on niche areas, instead of competing with bigger companies on big-name research, where they have lower chances of success.

So what’s the significance of this?

If Singapore adopts Dr Lee’s view on the biomedical strategy, Singapore would become specialised in areas of research where they have a competitive advantage, resulting in reduced focus on other “non-niche areas”. According to Dr Lee, this would rope in greater financial and medical benefits.

Dr Lee’s approach comes in the light of the limited resources that Singapore has. Adding on to Singapore’s lack of experience in the biomedical field, Dr Lee feels that Singapore has a slim chance of success if it continues to fight on so many fronts. Dr Lee fears that this would result in a large wastage of the country’s and taxpayers’ money, without assurance of success. Furthermore, the current “venture capitalism” and commercialisation approach discourages collaboration among researchers in different fields, further straining Singapore’s limited resources.

The irony present, however, is that Singapore is doing well with its current BMS strategy. Last year, the BMS grew a staggering 30.2% to $23 billion in manufacturing output. This number is expected to hit $25 billion in 2015. With such success, there is no reason to change the current BMS strategy.

Aside from this, opponents argue that Singapore should be given more time to identify its true forte. By committing towards carving out a niche, Singapore limits its area of research and loses opportunities, especially when unpredictable breakthroughs occur in other “non-niche areas”. This can be seen when we apply this in a more diverse context in the future. Firstly, foreign investors and companies in Singapore will be reduced to those from niche areas, while education will start to concentrate on the study of these subjects. This would cause niche areas to develop tremendously, and other areas to deteriorate rapidly, creating a precarious situation for the BMS. If the venture fails, Singapore wouldn’t have any other areas of research to fall back on, resulting in the inevitable demise of the BMS. This cogently shows the importance of giving the BMS time to identify its true forte, and engaging in broad-based research to give Singapore a strong foundation to fall back on.

Having not worked in the biomedical field before, my response above does have its limitations and blind-spots. My views may be influenced by the media and the government (who supports the BMS initiative) and may therefore be prejudiced. I believe that both sides have important and relevant views that should be seriously considered, in ameliorating the BMS strategy.

See article at:
http://www.todayonline.com/articles/170703.asp