How much spent on FT to help Gov find the Right Way Forward?
-
Research council approves 3 strategic areas to drive Singapore economy
How much did Singapore spend in bringing the best TALENTS of "international academics and industrialists " to sit on this supposedly 'high powered' Singapore Council for Research, Innovation and Enterprise (RIEC) that is chaired by PM LHL and with Dr Tony Tan as Deputy Chairman ?
By S Ramesh, Channel NewsAsia
Research, innovation and enterprise get a major boost in Singapore.
A high-powered council looking into these areas and chaired by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong has approved three strategic research programmes in biomedical sciences, environmental and water technologies and interactive and digital media.
They will be implemented in the next five years.
And the target is to provide 86,000 jobs with an added value of S$30 billion by 2015 in the three sectors.
At its first meeting the Research, Innovation and Enterprise Council (RIEC) comprising ministers and top international academics and industrialists got down to identifying niche areas which Singapore should focus on and excel in the next five years.
PM Lee said: "Our problem is not so much that we have a lot of bureaucracy as that we have an environment which is very systematic, where a lot of things are managed rather than left to grow from the ground. We have to shift the environment and we have to change our climate and shift to an environment where things grow from the ground up and people act on their own and make things happen.
"We are committed in Singapore to invest in R and D as a driver for economic growth and as a foundation for our long-term competitiveness. We have two key priorities - first to build up our core competencies in selected strategic areas and, secondly, to attract and develop a significant concentration of talent to sustain research activities in the long term. And if we can achieve this, we will create more career opportunities in R and D and this will attract more students to go into higher post-graduate education"
In biomedical sciences, the next phase will build on Singapore's basic research and drug discovery capabilities.
In the area of environmental and water technologies, the Council believes that Singapore is well placed to take a leading role in developing new technological solutions.
PM Lee said: "We believe that over the next ten years many new opportunities will emerge because technology will improve. The weather is changing, climate is going to change, places which are wet are going to be drought, places which were able to conserve water, now with more population will find themselves short of water. If there is high energy it puts more pressure on technology to come up with more efficient ways to use clean water. In fact there will be many opportunities."
And in the interactive and digital media sector, games and edu-tainment are potential focus areas for Singapore.
Dr Vivian Balakrishnan, Second Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts, said: "One big area of opportunity in interactive and digital media is really in content creation, content customisation and in being able to transmit content trans-culturally and this require people with artistic and linguistic and scientific perspectives being brought to bear in one brain or better still in teams which are then assembled in research labs and corporate labs and businesses."
For all these plans to roll out, the council has approved S$1.4 billion over the next five years to fund the development of the three strategic research programmes.
And a good number of jobs created by these sectors will be for Singaporeans.
Dr Tony Tan, Deputy Chairman, Research, Innovation Enterprise Council, said: "It would be a shame for us to create all of these jobs and find that we don't have Singaporeans who can actually have the skills to do the job and we have to import foreign talent to do it. Singaporeans must make an effort to be educated and trained."
The National Research Foundation has set up three executive committees to implement some of the recommendations which the Council has made to develop the three strategic areas of growth for Singapore.
In the meantime, the Foundation will also be on the lookout for new emerging markets to ensure that Singapore always remains on top of the research arena.
The Council will hold its second meeting in March next year. - CNA/ch
All the scholars recruited from the best Singapore talents forming the LHL Government had to be backed up with a team of "international talents " - how much did we spend to seek their advise and confirmation for the way forward ?
Are we comforted with the million dollars spent which resulted in the PM being able to crystallize the problem of "an environment which is very systematic, where a lot of things are managed rather than left to grow from the ground" ?
Was this realisation that "alot of things are managed and should have been left to grow from the ground" the result of the FT advise ?
Was this conclusion not obvious with all the years of Singapore complaints about the strong interfering hands of the Government ?
Is it surprising that despite this conclusion, we continue to be managed with a commitment - "first to build up our core competencies in selected strategic areas and, secondly, to attract and develop a significant concentration of talent to sustain research activities in the long term" ?
It seems that despite the FT advise, 'free market mechanism' remains distrusted, and need tinkering by the big persuasive hands of government to move social forces.
Are the million dollars spent on the Foreign Advisers and our Elite Ministers worth every cent for Singaporeans ? -
Instead, one should ask whether the money is well-spent on these international talents to aid in setting up the council which could be able to restructure or improve on Singapore next few years' direction. Since, it is at a startup stage, I think it is perfectly alright to seek expertise advise on this matter however, the big question remains whether any local academics or industrialists will fill the hot seats subsquently remains a mystery.
It is not a fair comparison and too much to ask for in our leaders to be a know-it-all. I certainly see our leaders as administrative and management expertists whilst the 'engaging group' whom has their niche firming rooted in the academic field and business corporate. It is then a true leader to be able to tap the expertise of others' strength than to act as Mr know-it-all.
A systematic environment is good for civil service to thrive yet it is the nemesis for the growth of private enterprises. The government service has consistently achieve stellar performance in areas of administrative and efficiency. I certainly cast a doubt that the FT advise on a free mechanism model is going to be apply to the civil sector, but more likely in the private sectors notably the GLCs since the free market concept is already in play with the signing of free trade agreement periodically. As mentioned that it is a startup phase, beside seeking professionals advice, it is critical that the model can work first before the free mechanism can be apply in full force. This act as a backdrop against the enormous injected funds as well as a form of protectionism for the new industry against potential competitors before its maturity date for free play.
-
pray pray..
"boss dun fired mi hor.. i will guai guai work one..i dun wan to go back yet"
-
Yes, we should be asking if the money is well spent - especially when the Elite leadership are already paid MILLION DOLLAR WAGES and have boastfully declared that they are MORE ABLE than the candidates from the Other Alternative Political Parties.Originally posted by TooFree:Instead, one should ask whether the money is well-spent on these international talents to aid in setting up the council which could be able to restructure or improve on Singapore next few years' direction. Since, it is at a startup stage, I think it is perfectly alright to seek expertise advise on this matter however, the big question remains whether any local academics or industrialists will fill the hot seats subsquently remains a mystery.
It is not a fair comparison and too much to ask for in our leaders to be a know-it-all. I certainly see our leaders as administrative and management expertists whilst the 'engaging group' whom has their niche firming rooted in the academic field and business corporate. It is then a true leader to be able to tap the expertise of others' strength than to act as Mr know-it-all.
A systematic environment is good for civil service to thrive yet it is the nemesis for the growth of private enterprises. The government service has consistently achieve stellar performance in areas of administrative and efficiency. I certainly cast a doubt that the FT advise on a free mechanism model is going to be apply to the civil sector, but more likely in the private sectors notably the GLCs since the free market concept is already in play with the signing of free trade agreement periodically. As mentioned that it is a startup phase, beside seeking professionals advice, it is critical that the model can work first before the free mechanism can be apply in full force. This act as a backdrop against the enormous injected funds as well as a form of protectionism for the new industry against potential competitors before its maturity date for free play.
It would be fairer if the Elitist Thinking of the Elite Leaders were more modest - by not passing critiques on the politicians from the alternative parties as being without any experience, credible track records, and all other creatively derogatory comments.
If Singaporeans can have the paid services of these Foreign Talents with their experiences, talents and knowlege being made available for our consultation, then any capable politicians with integrity and a clear, critical and circumspect mind will be sufficient standard to be elected into National Leadership.
Experience and credible track record no longer count, as even our MILLION DOLLAR Salaried Elite Leaders are as unsure as anyone - despite 45 years at the helm - and still require the consultation services of Foreign Talents. -
It is a fact, not just a causal derogatory remarks that most politicians from the opposition have no prior experience or credible track records working in the government boards, NGOs or even MNCs. If the opposition leaders do not even possess resilient as a strength of character against causually factual comments, then can we safety entrust our future to them in period of the cyclic economic recession?Originally posted by Atobe:Yes, we should be asking if the money is well spent - especially when the Elite leadership are already paid MILLION DOLLAR WAGES and have boastfully declared that they are MORE ABLE than the candidates from the Other Alternative Political Parties.
It would be fairer if the Elitist Thinking of the Elite Leaders were more modest - by not passing critiques on the politicians from the alternative parties as being without any experience, credible track records, and all other creatively derogatory comments.
If Singaporeans can have the paid services of these Foreign Talents with their experiences, talents and knowlege being made available for our consultation, then any capable politicians with integrity and a clear, critical and circumspect mind will be sufficient standard to be elected into National Leadership.
Experience and credible track record no longer count, as even our MILLION DOLLAR Salaried Elite Leaders are as unsure as anyone - despite 45 years at the helm - and still require the consultation services of Foreign Talents.
Though qualities of leadership is a non-exhaustive list, to possess all the attributes in a leader is definitly too much too ask for. Our leaders' foremost ability to lead and manage does not neccessarily means they possesses the enterprise and innovative aspects. Although the latter is more of a pre-requisite in the corporate field, the former is more crucial for any politicans to had. So if one truely seek a rare talent with all four qualities that I had mentioned or even more, then surely it is fair to pay a higher premium for the best talent for our country.
In Romance of the Three Kingdom - 'Three Visits to the Thatched Cottage', Liu Bei makes three visits to Zhuge Liang's residence to enlist his help. So if your assumption that a leader needs no consultation, then can you kindly tell me why did Liu Bei, a leader, needs to seek help from others? -
Originally posted by TooFree:
Unfortunately, your facts do not seem to tally with the profile of those Singaporeans standing as candidates for the Alternative Parties - as published by AsiaOne - where did you get your "facts" from ?
It is a fact, not just a causal derogatory remarks that most politicians from the opposition have no prior experience or credible track records working in the government boards, NGOs or even MNCs. If the opposition leaders do not even possess resilient as a strength of character against causually factual comments, then can we safety entrust our future to them in period of the cyclic economic recession?
Basing an opinion on wrong facts can get you into serious trouble with those in the Ruling Political Party, and making claims based on wrong facts can only be callous and derogatory.
Can we trust your judgment that "the opposition leaders do not even posses resilient as a strength of character against causally factual comments " ?
Is your concept of "causally factual" comments based on your own understanding of what is "basic cause, and factual" leading to the "EVIL" in your own understanding of the "causally factual" concept ?
From the recently held 2006 Elections, did PM LHL show any of your required leadership "resilient as a strength of character against causually factual comments" in his infamous election speech :
Does this resemble anything close to leadership qualities ?
"Instead of spending my time thinking of what is the right policy for Singapore, I have to spend all my time thinking what is the right way to fix them, what's the right way to buy my own supporters over," said Lee, the son of Singapore's founder, Lee Kuan Yew.
The comment drew instant fire from the Workers' Party, which said Lee's use of the term "fix" was ominous and that his comments suggested he was not competent to handle a robust opposition. In a rare retraction, Lee's office later said the prime minister was sorry if his "direct language" had offended anyone.
Is Singapore in mature safe hands of persons with discerning and circumspect minds and visions ?
Your views simply do not tally with the statements made by the Ruling Party during the introduction of new candidates, when it was attributed to Wong Kang Seng stating that :
Though qualities of leadership is a non-exhaustive list, to possess all the attributes in a leader is definitly too much too ask for. Our leaders' foremost ability to lead and manage does not neccessarily means they possesses the enterprise and innovative aspects. Although the latter is more of a pre-requisite in the corporate field, the former is more crucial for any politicans to had. So if one truely seek a rare talent with all four qualities that I had mentioned or even more, then surely it is fair to pay a higher premium for the best talent for our country.
"we look at 4Cs – capability, character, commitment and compassion.
We look for able men and women – they usually distinguish themselves in their fields of activity. We look for people with integrity – as this is one of our Party’s core values. We look for people who are committed to Singapore. And we look for people who care for other Singaporeans. "
If they possess the capability - evidenced by the boastful self-award of the million dollar ministerial wages - and their claims to an experienced track record, why are we spending more money to engage those Foreign Talents whose time are expensive on their own merits ?
During the last exercises in 1987, 1997 and 2002 - the Economic Review Committee had charted some new directions, was there any review published as to the efficacy of those new found targetted territories of education, bio-science, SME development ?
Are the new found goals of the Research, Innovation & Enterprise Council a rehash of what is already being done by the Private Sector before the Council had even any clue and latching on to these areas that are already identified by the Private Sector and in various stages of development, namely : " biomedical sciences, environmental and water technologies, and digital and interactive media" ?
Are you confusing the topic ?
In Romance of the Three Kingdom - 'Three Visits to the Thatched Cottage', Liu Bei makes three visits to Zhuge Liang's residence to enlist his help. So if your assumption that a leader needs no consultation, then can you kindly tell me why did Liu Bei, a leader, needs to seek help from others?
Was Liu Bei recruiting a Foreign Talent by the name of Zhuge Liang, or was he trying to enlist his own countryman to advance his own ambition towards a common goal - much like the new Singaporean faces being recruited by all the Political Parties in the recent Election 2006 ?
In any case, just to humor you along :
Liu Bei realised his own weakness in military warfare and strategies, and his visit was to recruit Zhuge Liang to a common cause of conquering the other two rivals, and assuring the peaceful growth of its own Shu Han Kingdom.
Zhuge Liang (a.k.a Kong Ming) accepted Liu Bei's sincerity and served as a Chancellor, continuing in the same post into reign of Liu Bei's son - Liu Sun
Unlike our present day million dollar ministers, Liu Bei and Zhuge Liang had a modest lifestyle and little demands for their service to their nation.
Zhuge Liang was a well known military strategist, and his services was sought after for this reason only.
No record exist to confirm his vision and astuteness in matters related to economics.