World Bank concerned about SG's bio-medical sector spinoffs.
-
Big risks, says World Bank
Billions spent with results far away, WB economists say. Reuters.
Dec 9, 2006
Singapore's multi billion-dollar campaign to develop a biomedical sector and create new sources of revenue is failing to yield any significant payoffs so far, two prominent World Bank economists said.
The economists, authors of a new book about industrial policy in East Asian cities, said Singapore has only a 50/50 chance of succeeding, but the move is a gamble it must take to maintain economic prosperity in the face of growing competition from low-cost neighbours such as China.
“We don't see the pay-off yet. The real pay-off is when Singapore companies are turning profits and going for IPOs,” Shahid Yusuf said on a call from his office in Washington DC.
“The pressure is building for Singapore to have some success stories,” he said, noting that Singapore did not have any internationally known drug companies.
Over the last five years, Singapore has plowed more than S$3 billion (US$2 billion) into its biomedical sector, official data showed.
Some estimate as much as S$5 billion has been committed. It has spent generously on start-ups, new facilities and labs and on luring top scientists from the US, the UK and Europe.
The problem Singapore faces is one, which is faced around the globe by countries trying to tap into the potential of biomedical development.
So far, despite all the investment, few are earning the kind of money that hubs in Boston and San Diego are making.
“Around the world, biotech is still more promise than profit as of yet,” said Mr Yusuf.
Despite the lack of success so far, the authors highlighted the potential for huge dividends later.
Kaoru Nabeshima said the pharmaceutical industry held great potential for economies such as Singapore, India, China, South Korea and Taiwan.
In the US health care spending was about 16 per cent of GDP compared to 3-6 per cent in many other countries. - Reuters
http://www.littlespeck.com/content/Technology/CTrendsTechno-061209.htm -
Which researcher is willing to risk doing extremes to their test samples to get an unexpected results?
-
the two World Bank economists are ''theoriticians'' and SG creates 10,000
high value added jobs in less than 10 years.Output increases
4 times since 2000.
sorry i need recycle this postings from Who say SG factory dying?.
Question No. 1:
Which factory net profis is one and half time of Sing Tel?
2.Which factory net profits is more than
sum of net profits of ALL 3 LOCAL banks.S1000 Award Top Net Profit by Industry
BTW,Glaxo Wellcome Manufacturing Pte Ltd is a drug maker!!
Company Name......................Net Profit SGD '000
Communications/Transport/Storage
Singapore Telecommunications Limited.....$4,161,300
Finance
United Overseas Bank Limited .................$1,731,403
Hotels/Food Establishments
Goodwood Park Hotel Limited ....................$208,596
Manufacturing
Glaxo Wellcome Manufacturing Pte Ltd .........$6,593,844
Retail
DFS Venture Singapore (Pte) Limited ............$148,707
Services
Singapore Press Holdings Limited ....................$488,389
Wholesale
Exxonmobil Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd. ......................$1,833,794
2.SG government expense is some $30 billion pa.Profits of Glaxo Wellcome Manufacturing Pte Ltd .........$6,593,844,000 is more than 20% of sg expenses!!.
Of course,there is much tax incentives under Pioneer Certificates etc.
4.They said SG got 50/50% chance of succes is rubbish.
How about 10,000 jobs in 2006,value output S$23 billions and value added $13.6 b?SG starts from zero in less than 10 years ago.Output increases 4 times since 2000.
Let say 30% jobs go to local,3000 families were saved from unemployment!
No wander outgoing Chairman Philip Yeo calls the two World Bank economists ''theoriticians''.
The respected economists were there to promote their new book.
There is no better country to critize than Singapore.
Western medias like to hit SG from the back. -
It should be noted that manufacturing will not help people move up the social ladder. Moreover, as we go up the manufacturing ladder, the no. of jobs available becomes fewer and fewer. Yes, they will feed families, but fewer and fewer as time goes by. The truth of the matter is that manufacturing in Singapore is becoming more and more expensive as the years go by.
Using GSK as an example is a little flawed as the company on its own regards manufacturing something of a secondary operation since their primary goal is to develop new drugs. I might furthermore add that developing a drug take 10 years or more with a high potential for failure. A drug which Pfizer was banking heavily on for the past decade has turned out to be a failure and billions spent has been wasted. The nature of research is that one should not expect short term gain and expect only long term in the order of a few decades. Singapore, as it is, has small chance of competing against giants such as the Untied States by sheer quantity and quality. It is as LKY's daughter said; focus on some research areas and not spread themselves too thin. If one were to visit a public university like University of Michigan, depts make do with limited resources and focus on certain fields and hire people related to those fields to enhance the output of the dept. Singapore, especially when it is just starting should focus and attempt to produce success then bank on its reputation and expand from that standpoint. As it is, our current pool of talent is largely foreign and it wouldn't take much effort for them to pack their bags and head back to the US especially when the current US Govt wakes up its idea and starts ramping funding up.
It should be noted that the Govt's push for R&D prior to the biopolis has not worked and hasn't worked for a decade over. What makes anyone think that this crack pot policy would work? If the Govt does intend to focus on research, it should spread beyond Biotech as the only way to tap and foster huge interdisciplinary work is to have depts in most related fields who may or may not cooperate but instead be centers of creativity etc. Each dept of course should focus on fields that they think they can excel in.
The Govt's inflexibility is a problem. They cherry pick sciences like nothing. This does not work. To foster an environment of creativity you must give people some breathing space to work their own creativity. Alas the Govt fails to see this.
By the way, the economists weren't the first to say this. Some years back, a noted Harvard economist who correctly predicted how SIngapore should develop said the same thing with due reflection on how the Singapore Govt thinks. -
When Singapore first became independent, how many foreign leaders or global institutions would believe that it would survive, much less join the ranks of the first world in 40 years?
There is a risk in every investment but the biomed industry is a safer bet than many others. Consider the government's investment in the Arts: despite the millions poured into the Esplanade, how much have we got from it in return? It is running at a loss annually if not for the continual government subsidies. In contrast, the biomed industry has grown at a sizzling 30% last year with record $29 billion output.
No investor should put all his eggs in one basket but biomed has proven itself to be a better bet than the arts. -
IF anyone thought the Goverment might be rethinking its strategy to develop the biomedical sector here, several big guns from A*Star were quick to dismiss it on Tuesday.
They said the Government is fully committed to the current approach of hiring world-class researchers and letting them work on major diseases such as cancer - a policy which had come under fire recently from National Neuroscience Institute head Dr Lee Wei Ling.
They also defended the achievements of Singapore's multibillion-dollar biomedical sciences (BMS) drive.
'The BMS initiative has been successful and there is no rethink or change in the Government's BMS policy,' said Dr Beh Swan Gin, executive director of the Biomedical Research Council at the Agency for Science, Technology and Research (A*Star).
The statement comes in the wake of remarks made by Dr Lee last November in an article in The Straits Times and which she repeated in a Reuters interview last Friday.
Dr Lee had said that the Government should reassess its strategy for creating a biomedical industry after spending billions of dollars without achieving significant results.
'All I can say is that maybe they are having a rethink,' she added.
In the interview, Dr Lee had also suggested that Singapore should invest in niche areas of research such as Asian diseases.
Quashing suggestions of a change in policy, Dr Beh read out the Government's position on the issue at a media conference to review the performance of the BMS industry last year.
But he added that Singapore will always continue to adjust its strategies, depending on how they perform.
'The aim at the end of the day is to ensure we are on the right track,' he said.
Outgoing A*Star chairman Philip Yeo and his successor Lim Chuan Poh, as well as Institute of Molecular and Cell Biology chief David Lane, also weighed in on the debate.
On the alleged lack of results, they emphasised that the biomedical initiative is a long-haul effort that typically takes 10 to 15 years to blossom.
'You have to give it time to show success. Some of these things cannot be done in a matter of three years or five years,' said Lieutenant-General (NS) Lim. 'We are going to stay the course.'
But what Singapore has achieved was already attracting international attention, with many countries trying to emulate Singapore's success, said Mr Yeo.
Lt-Gen (NS) Lim also defended the policy of attracting big names from the research world while nurturing local talent.
'Why must it be that Singaporeans cannot be world-beaters?' he asked.
'We have bright young Singaporeans who compete in the top league. If we don't create the kind of place for them to realise these ambitions, they will be overseas competing for other people.'
Star researchers such as Sir David are the 'whales' needed here as role models for the pool of young 'guppies' that A*Star is grooming, explained Mr Yeo.
On why an upstart such as Singapore should work on major diseases, Sir David noted that the major causes of death here - illnesses such as heart diseases and cancer - are the same as top killers worldwide.
At the briefing, Mr Yeo also distributed to reporters an e-mail written by Nobel laureate Sydney Brenner of the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in the United States.
In it, Dr Brenner reaffirmed Singapore's focus on diseases that are rising in incidence here and that have public health value, such as cancer. 'We should not accept that Singapore is a second class country only fit for cast-offs of the major countries,' he wrote.
Characterising Dr Lee's criticism as 'a voice in the wilderness', Mr Yeo said: 'For a person who has not been here (to Biopolis) to make comments, I leave it to that person. The Singapore Government is fully committed to what we have done.'
(Straits Times, 6 Feb) -
Originally posted by lionnoisy:
You are one sucker for the statistics fabricated by our government.
the two World Bank economists are ''theoriticians'' and SG creates 10,000
high value added jobs in less than 10 years.Output increases
4 times since 2000.
sorry i need recycle this postings from [b] Who say SG factory dying?.
Question No. 1:
Which factory net profis is one and half time of Sing Tel?
2.Which factory net profits is more than
sum of net profits of ALL 3 LOCAL banks.
BTW,Glaxo Wellcome Manufacturing Pte Ltd is a drug maker!!
2.SG government expense is some $30 billion pa.Profits of Glaxo Wellcome Manufacturing Pte Ltd .........$6,593,844,000 is more than 20% of sg expenses!!.
Of course,there is much tax incentives under Pioneer Certificates etc.
4.They said SG got 50/50% chance of succes is rubbish.
How about 10,000 jobs in 2006,value output S$23 billions and value added $13.6 b?SG starts from zero in less than 10 years ago.Output increases 4 times since 2000.
Let say 30% jobs go to local,3000 families were saved from unemployment!
No wander outgoing Chairman Philip Yeo calls the two World Bank economists ''theoriticians''.
The respected economists were there to promote their new book.
There is no better country to critize than Singapore.
Western medias like to hit SG from the back.[/b] -
i may be the fool.But are they?
....
Singapore says no rethink of biomed policy after criticism,Mia Shanley,Reuters,07 Feb 07
Sir David Lane...
Neal Copeland and Nancy Jenkins, who arrived from the United States with an army of mice last September to continue their cancer research in Singapore.
(each type of mice is IP ,after SG and USA discussions then can land
in SG!!)"Neal and Nancy Copeland sold their house, quit their jobs and are committed to Singapore in a big way," Lane said.
Secret underground labs in Biopolis full of mice. -
What I'm objecting to here is not that we cannot succeed or not but whether or not our approach is correct or not.Originally posted by oxford mushroom:When Singapore first became independent, how many foreign leaders or global institutions would believe that it would survive, much less join the ranks of the first world in 40 years?
There is a risk in every investment but the biomed industry is a safer bet than many others. Consider the government's investment in the Arts: despite the millions poured into the Esplanade, how much have we got from it in return? It is running at a loss annually if not for the continual government subsidies. In contrast, the biomed industry has grown at a sizzling 30% last year with record $29 billion output.
No investor should put all his eggs in one basket but biomed has proven itself to be a better bet than the arts.
Our so called bloody industry is again rested on manufacturing drugs rather than on patents! For all the flair, our biomed industry is a near mirror image for the electronics industry!
And many US researchers came to Singapore because of the restrictions on stem cell research in the US. Otherwise Singapore as a country has NOTHING to offer to the foreign researchers who otherwise have far better access to funding and equipment and not to mention weather in the US. We are simply buying time hoping to make a breakthrough or two before they pack up their bags again. John Hopkins packed their bags precisely because Singapore is a pile of poodoo when it comes to attitudes towards research. They could do without our bloody money. The attitude towards research is so damn bureaucratic that it boggles the mind about the real quality of the research in Singapore which from what I hear from people who have knowledge of these matters is that the quality is darn near zero and even professors here have admitted that. Has no one forgotten that some professors at NUS themselves regarded the university rankings are ridiculously IRRELEVANT because they failed to take into account quality of research. We may have some bright sparks but they aren't enough to drive Singapore forward. -
loinnoisy is not a sucker for statistics fabricated by the government, loinnoisy is the government.Originally posted by Deportivo:You are one sucker for the statistics fabricated by our government.
Hehehe -
The standard response by those who cannot fight facts and figuresOriginally posted by Deportivo:You are one sucker for the statistics fabricated by our government.
-
Standard response by those who think facts and figures can't be distorted.Originally posted by oxford mushroom:The standard response by those who cannot fight facts and figures 
-
So what's your objection? That instead of waiting the decade it takes on average to get a marketable drug, we are already making money right from the go by manufacturing licensed drugs? As I said, we still have a small window of opportunity in drug manufacture in Singapore, based on the quality of our manufacturing processes and confidence in our quality assurance schemes. China and India can certainly make drugs, and have made thousands of copy drugs or varying quality. Big pharmaceutical companies would rather manufacture a blockbuster drug in Singapore where the standards are high and their intellectual property will be protected. The government is right to leverage on this advantage to grow our economy.Originally posted by Fingolfin_Noldor:Our so called bloody industry is again rested on manufacturing drugs rather than on patents! For all the flair, our biomed industry is a near mirror image for the electronics industry!
R&D in the biomed industry is essential for us to maintain the lead over China and India as they tidy up their factories and confidence in their drug-making capability builds with time. Eventually, we will have to move into a drug design and trial centre rather than just a manufacturing base, but that will take time. In the meantime, we are earning revenue making licensed drugs. That is to be encouraged.
You don't know what you are talking about. University ranking doesn't take into account quality of research? It's just the opposite and I know it because my pay depends on my research output.Originally posted by Fingolfin_Noldor:And many US researchers came to Singapore because of the restrictions on stem cell research in the US. Otherwise Singapore as a country has NOTHING to offer to the foreign researchers who otherwise have far better access to funding and equipment and not to mention weather in the US. We are simply buying time hoping to make a breakthrough or two before they pack up their bags again. John Hopkins packed their bags precisely because Singapore is a pile of poodoo when it comes to attitudes towards research. They could do without our bloody money. The attitude towards research is so damn bureaucratic that it boggles the mind about the real quality of the research in Singapore which from what I hear from people who have knowledge of these matters is that the quality is darn near zero and even professors here have admitted that. Has no one forgotten that some professors at NUS themselves regarded the university rankings are ridiculously IRRELEVANT because they failed to take into account quality of research. We may have some bright sparks but they aren't enough to drive Singapore forward.
There are disagreements in the research community over the way funding is distributed and the sort of research that is being supported in Singapore. The current saga between Philip Yeo and Lee Wei Ling is an example of that. Nobody is denying the need to make the biomed industry the fourth pillar of our economy. The debate among those in the industry is how to apportion limited resources and how much should be given to imported talents to jumpstart the initiative.
John Hopkins was given special treatment and alot of research funds (that we locals can never dream of) with the understanding that they bring in senior scientists from the US. They failed to honour their side of the bargain and so they were kicked out. Incidentally, I disagree with the decision to bring in John Hopkins on those terms but that is a separate issue. John Hopkins agreed to those terms and they failed to fulfill their side of the bargain. -
If you actually bothered to read the papers, you would know that the professors admited the quality of research isn't great. Our Glorious ST even reported that professors say that NUS/NTU are only good for making waste papers. Heck, our papers are not even well refered to, short of referrals within the NTU/NUS. You obviously don't know what you are talking about either, nor do you even have a pretense of know what the situation is. Now you tell me that biotech is to be the fourth pillar of the economy, do you even know what that means? I said the biotech right now in Singapore is mere mirror image of the electronics industry. For all that rebranding, biotech is just picking up the slack from the weakening electronics sector which has seen steady outflows of investment over the years. So the biotech is technically not a fourth pillar but merely a replacement pillar in the manufacturing industry. It's all bloody propaganda. Old wine in new bottles, hmm? Same o' strategy of manufacturing as usual.Originally posted by oxford mushroom:You don't know what you are talking about. University ranking doesn't take into account quality of research? It's just the opposite and I know it because my pay depends on my research output.
There are disagreements in the research community over the way funding is distributed and the sort of research that is being supported in Singapore. The current saga between Philip Yeo and Lee Wei Ling is an example of that. Nobody is denying the need to make the biomed industry the fourth pillar of our economy. The debate among those in the industry is how to apportion limited resources and how much should be given to imported talents to jumpstart the initiative.
John Hopkins was given special treatment and alot of research funds (that we locals can never dream of) with the understanding that they bring in senior scientists from the US. They failed to honour their side of the bargain and so they were kicked out. Incidentally, I disagree with the decision to bring in John Hopkins on those terms but that is a separate issue. John Hopkins agreed to those terms and they failed to fulfill their side of the bargain.
Research? Forget it. The research community will take over a decade to mature no thanks to the lack of support from the Govt for the past few decades and given the hit and miss nature, you won't see results for decades, and the Govt would have lost interest by then and proceeded to harp on some new subject.
You know, none of the really senior researchers would want to come to Singapore, so our A*Star people can go wish for apples that won't fall. What makes you think they would want to come? Short of the few morons who for some reason got suckered to come here.
For added perspective, take a look at this: http://www.in-cites.com/research/2005/march_7_2005-1.html You can check the latest rankings. Look how pathetic we are.
-
Haha...easy to talk big when you haven't got any proof...next you will claim to be a nobel prize laureate. The ranking of universities is based on research output and the position of NUS in the world ranking reflects the quality of our research. Although much more can be done, Singapore punches above her weight given the short history of our institutions and our limited talent pool. That is why it is important to bring in more foreign talent for this industry.Originally posted by Fingolfin_Noldor:If you actually bothered to read the papers, you would know that the professors admited the quality of research isn't great. Our Glorious ST even reported that professors say that NUS/NTU are only good for making waste papers. Heck, our papers are not even well refered to, short of referrals within the NTU/NUS.
The government's support for research in recent years has been anything but astounding. Scientists in the west are green with envy at the amount of commitment given to biomedical research in the past few years.Originally posted by Fingolfin_Noldor:Research? Forget it. The research community will take over a decade to mature no thanks to the lack of support from the Govt for the past few decades and given the hit and miss nature, you won't see results for decades, and the Govt would have lost interest by then and proceeded to harp on some new subject.
You know, none of the really senior researchers would want to come to Singapore, so our A*Star people can go wish for apples that won't fall. What makes you think they would want to come? Short of the few morons who for some reason got suckered to come here.
For added perspective, take a look at this: http://www.in-cites.com/research/2005/march_7_2005-1.html You can check the latest rankings. Look how pathetic we are.
You are being disingenuous, to say the least, by pointing out to figures between 1999-2003, when our life sciences initiative have yet to begin. High-level research takes time to bring to fruition and Singapore's significant contribution will be seen over the next 5-10 years. -
Idiot. There's a link for up to 2004. Blind as you as always. You honestly think we could have jumped 10 places up in a few years? Fat chance. The US has way more brains than we have. And by the way, the Govt started talking up this biotech nonsense as far back as 2000. Singapore's significant contribution? Please, the local pool of people leading the way are all foreigners, who'd sooner pack up their bags and go. Hardly sustainable in the long term. Moreover, the figures themselves show how bad we are at R&D for years. Have you forgotten the Govt's trumpeting of the electronics R&D long ago with a heavy emphasis on engineering and Computer science? This biotech nonsense is merely the latest nonsensical trumpeting, albeit with a gloriously large sum. And oh by the way, most of these research advances won't bring much by way of money, because we don't even have local companies to take advantage of it. Likely the pharmaceuticals will take the tab and go make profits while we get a pittance in royalties.Originally posted by oxford mushroom:The government's support for research in recent years has been anything but astounding. Scientists in the west are green with envy at the amount of commitment given to biomedical research in the past few years.
You are being disingenuous, to say the least, by pointing out to figures between 1999-2003, when our life sciences initiative have yet to begin. High-level research takes time to bring to fruition and Singapore's significant contribution will be seen over the next 5-10 years.
Shut the hell up. The newspapers had the Prof's letters in the forum pages. You idiot have obviously not read the papers for a long time or chosen to forget them. I even had friends who went to do internships and told me of the nonsensical nonsense in Singapore. Little wonder some A*Star Scholars chose to break bond rather than indulge in skulldruggery. Singapore punches above her weight? Why not start admitting you are a PAP crony for starters? Provide proof that I am wrong instead of resorting to ad hominen... If you even know what "ad hominen" means (which most PAP supporters probably don't.) And oh, put down the Paper numbers, I'll go dig them out myself and check oh how well cited they are. You can't provide them, fuck off.-Originally posted by oxford mushroom:Haha...easy to talk big when you haven't got any proof...next you will claim to be a nobel prize laureate. The ranking of universities is based on research output and the position of NUS in the world ranking reflects the quality of our research. Although much more can be done, Singapore punches above her weight given the short history of our institutions and our limited talent pool. That is why it is important to bring in more foreign talent for this industry. -
Why bother engaging someone who only supports his own stand and refuses to engage in inclusive debate.
Anyway, why even bother to engage those who want to be pro-PAP for the sake of shining the party gloss? Why give them the airtime and consequential online presence that "debating" them takes?
Ignore their threads if they persist and deny them a online presence/credibility unless they are willing to engage in serious, veritable discussions. -
I am beginning to feel that sentiment too. Seriously, OM is simply following the standard PAP modus operandi of hardly bring substance to debate, use ad hominen to defend his stance, and simply sticking to the stance like an idiot he already is.Originally posted by LazerLordz:Why bother engaging someone who only supports his own stand and refuses to engage in inclusive debate.
Anyway, why even bother to engage those who want to be pro-PAP for the sake of shining the party gloss? Why give them the airtime and consequential online presence that "debating" them takes?
Ignore their threads if they persist and deny them a online presence/credibility unless they are willing to engage in serious, veritable discussions. -
Originally posted by lionnoisy:
Did you say that Glaxo's Profit is "US$6,593,844,000 is more than 20% of sg expenses !!. " ?
2.SG government expense is some $30 billion pa.Profits of Glaxo Wellcome Manufacturing Pte Ltd .........$6,593,844,000 is more than 20% of sg expenses!!.
Of course,there is much tax incentives under Pioneer Certificates etc.
Surely the Annual Executive Director remuneration of US$1,523,000 - and US$725,000 to the Chairman of the Research Group - is more justifiable under such circumstances, compared to the salary paid to our PM and all the Cabinet Ministers and Minister-of-State ?
This Ruling Party dare to compare their performance of Singapore's economy and achievements to the likes of Private Enterprises to justify the remunerations given to themselves ?
This is tragic comedy.
Not all research and development enterprise will bear fruit, and a 50/50 chance is about the best bet to the research bearing results that allow it to be 'marketable'.
4.They said SG got 50/50% chance of succes is rubbish.
Have you ever been involved in R&D work ?
If you have never been in it, rubbish is more for you to digest before shooting it out from your mouth.
Why be theoretical in the number of jobs ? Why does this Government remain silent about the actual statistics of those who are employed by such foreign investments ?
How about 10,000 jobs in 2006,value output S$23 billions and value added $13.6 b?SG starts from zero in less than 10 years ago.Output increases 4 times since 2000.
Let say 30% jobs go to local,3000 families were saved from unemployment!
[/b]
How does your 30% jobs going to locals save 3000 familiers from unemployment ?
Can we believe the statements made by an arrogant and over glorified person, who will use the powers of the state to mow down a puny scholarship holder ?
No wander outgoing Chairman Philip Yeo calls the two World Bank economists ''theoriticians''.[/b]
Just because Philip Yeo say so, do not make it a bible truth; and just because you have been banging away in support of the Government, cannot possibly drown out the fact that the unemployed 40s and 50s remain jobless despite all the glowing reports of jobs created.
Western medias hit anyone and everyone - including George Bush and Tony Blair. Is it so unusual for them to hit Singapore ?
The respected economists were there to promote their new book.
There is no better country to critize than Singapore.
Western medias like to hit SG from the back.
Only those who are articulate in the art of telling half truths, and repeating lies often to make such lies become the truth based on their social authority - will need to fear the same voodoo art being worked on them.
Has anyone ever noticed that SG is already being treated like a 'pariah state' ?
Whenever our Ministers complete an overseas tour, the only media reporters present are from the Government controlled news agencies. No one from the foreign news agencies are invited, as the Government has no control over the manner the news are reported in the foreign press.
Even the news agencies from friendly countries such as Japan, China, or Inida have never attended such press briefings.
Today, China is more astute and sophisticated in her ways of handling the foreign reporters that operate inside China.
This SG Government - with a Third World Mentality - has a long way to grow up before the true First World Status can be attained. -
What is the point of engaging hypocrites who oppose every government policy for the sake of opposition, who puts personal ideology before national interests and would exchange meritocracy for mediocrity?Originally posted by LazerLordz:Why bother engaging someone who only supports his own stand and refuses to engage in inclusive debate.
Anyway, why even bother to engage those who want to be pro-PAP for the sake of shining the party gloss? Why give them the airtime and consequential online presence that "debating" them takes?
Ignore their threads if they persist and deny them a online presence/credibility unless they are willing to engage in serious, veritable discussions.
What is the use of the government trying to pull ostriches from the sand to see that the world is moving on, whether or not they are prepared to face the facts?
Some people just refused to be helped. Some people deserve to fall by thye wayside in the march of globalisation. The government wants all Singaporeans to progress together, but there are some who would insist to be a hinderance and should be left behind. -
Lordy... you really had to say it eh? Many of these so called hinderance won't be left behind. Rather, they pack their bags and leave, and see who's left behind. Life abroad is infinitely better. It is your arrogance that you fail to see that. It is your own arrogance to think that the Govt is perfect, and it is your own arrogance to refuse to have an open mind but simply regard your opposition as something beneath your dignity to even lower yourself and think as they do. Rather you wave them off as insignficant flies. Just as the kings of Europe who waved off those against the monarchy as anarchists who seek to destroy world order, you wave off the opposition as anarchists. By the end of the 19th century, most of the kings of Europe were swept away by the tides of history, so will Singapore. You fear chaos because you do not comprehend what the chaos is and how to function. Like many Singaporeans, you are afraid to think. Since you have revealed your true stance, there is nothing more to say to you. Good bye.Originally posted by oxford mushroom:What is the point of engaging hypocrites who oppose every government policy for the sake of opposition, who puts personal ideology before national interests and would exchange meritocracy for mediocrity?
What is the use of the government trying to pull ostriches from the sand to see that the world is moving on, whether or not they are prepared to face the facts?
Some people just refused to be helped. Some people deserve to fall by thye wayside in the march of globalisation. The government wants all Singaporeans to progress together, but there are some who would insist to be a hinderance and should be left behind. -
replt to Atobe post 11.02.2007
Did you say that Glaxo's Profit is "US$6,593,844,000 is more than 20% of sg expenses !!. " ?(lion note:It is S$,i dunt say is US$)
Summary remuneration report for the year to 31 December 2004
Surely the Annual Executive Director remuneration of US$1,523,000 - and US$725,000 to the Chairman of the Research Group - is more justifiable under such circumstances, compared to the salary paid to our PM and all the Cabinet Ministers and Minister-of-State ?
This Ruling Party dare to compare their performance of Singapore's economy and achievements to the likes of Private Enterprises to justify the remunerations given to themselves ?
Annual remuneration
in
....,total annual remuneration 2004
Dr JP Garnier,(US)$4,570,000
Dr T Yamada,US$2,303,000
Mr J Coombe,£1,237,000
Good things never come cheap!!Treat PM like the CEO lah,...
You pay cheap like Aussie,just a mess.Look at the military
spendings.If i am Aussie,i will vomite bloods......
2.No risks,no gains.So do u want SG do R& D or not? -
Originally posted by lionnoisy:
God... must the Govt do everything or are all the Singaporeans so spineless they need to pay someone else to give them a spine? The US is so successful because the people have a spine and don't wait for the damn Govt to do everything for them.
replt to Atobe post 11.02.2007
Summary remuneration report for the year to 31 December 2004
Annual remuneration
[b]in
....,total annual remuneration 2004
Dr JP Garnier,(US)$4,570,000
Dr T Yamada,US$2,303,000
Mr J Coombe,£1,237,000
Good things never come cheap!!Treat PM like the CEO lah,...
You pay cheap like Aussie,just a mess.Look at the military
spendings.If i am Aussie,i will vomite bloods......
2.No risks,no gains.So do u want SG do R& D or not?
[/b] -
If you can make a distinction between hypocrites and people who do not mince their words when faced with a certain situation or scenario in front of them, then maybe there is still a chance of a fruitful debate.Originally posted by oxford mushroom:What is the point of engaging hypocrites who oppose every government policy for the sake of opposition, who puts personal ideology before national interests and would exchange meritocracy for mediocrity?
What is the use of the government trying to pull ostriches from the sand to see that the world is moving on, whether or not they are prepared to face the facts?
Some people just refused to be helped. Some people deserve to fall by thye wayside in the march of globalisation. The government wants all Singaporeans to progress together, but there are some who would insist to be a hinderance and should be left behind.
Somehow, when you put forward your case, you left out the importance of acknowledgment of the Other's arguments and postulations.
The Government "wants", have they the ability to carry things out to fruition or will it just linger like a shiny bauble that they love to pass out all the time? It's all been a nice show, and no real systems renewal or progression. Even the best of optimists will feel jaded.
'Nuff said. There is a time and place to play strategic games, and there is a time and place to look at issues from a more microcosmic level. -
Originally posted by oxford mushroom:
There seems to be more than one in this sgForums to agree that the obvious hypocrite in this sgForums seems to be you.
What is the point of engaging hypocrites who oppose every government policy for the sake of opposition, who puts personal ideology before national interests and would exchange meritocracy for mediocrity?
In the other thread - PAP moves to counter criticism of party, govt in cyberspace - your hypocrisy has been clearly exposed in my response on Page 7 11 February 2007 05.52AM.
“we are not prepared to gamble away our future prosperity to put this country into the hands of those who would not even respect our freedom to hold a different opinion”
If you cannot trust this country in the hands of those who DO NOT RESPECT our FREEDOM to hold a different opinion - is it not a fact that we have some of the most arrogant and intolerant Singaporeans gathered in the Ruling Political Party, the majority of whom will not tolerate alternative views and will be ruthless in suppressing any challenge towards their authority.
You have shown yourself to be overzealous in being the obvious hypocrite to sing their song so fervently.
You seem to have hypocritically change in your attitude towards 'sand' considering your doubt on the stability of sand to provide any strong foundation for any argument.
What is the use of the government trying to pull ostriches from the sand to see that the world is moving on, whether or not they are prepared to face the facts?
The problem with this Government is that it has always been too arrogant to receive alternative views, and have always been two or three steps late, while the world has passed us by.
The Private Singaporean Small and Medium sized Entrepreneurs had shown the way into China, and had made it good before the Singapore Government began its propaganda of a 'Second Wing' Economy, and in the process lost more then a few Billion Singapore Dollars in Suzhou Industrial Park.
Singapore's involvement in the Biotech Industry was also a late response to the headstart and progress made by other Industrialised Countries, who have pushed ahead with a lead time of at least five years or more.
All that this Singapore Government could do was to throw billions of dollars from our National Reserve to entice foreign researchers to move to Singapore.
Has there been any master plan as to which direction of the Bio-Tech Industry we would like to head; or is it merely a desparate attempt to recover from the lost time, and get what we can get first, then trim the investments as we get a better understanding and grip on the Bio-Tech game.
All this has left a bad taste in those who have been subsequently trimmed out, and only give Singapore a bad name in the Bio-Tech World.
Show your evidence that "some people just refused to be helped" instead of making generalised statements - that shows outrageous arrogance and non-understanding of the ground zero economic situation in Singapore.
Some people just refused to be helped. Some people deserve to fall by thye wayside in the march of globalisation. The government wants all Singaporeans to progress together, but there are some who would insist to be a hinderance and should be left behind.
Even this Singapore Government will not dare to make any hint in this direction, and we have a PhD in this sgForum making arrogant and foolish sweeping statement - without any evidence.
