Biomedical research: Establishment vs Establishment
-
I agree Mr Yeo does have an attitude and brash words. However, the biomedical push was based on consultation with Prof Sydney Brenner, and not the single-handed decision of Yeo alone.Originally posted by Fingolfin_Noldor:The only reason why Philip Yeo hasn't been kicked out for his stupidity is because of his political connections. Lots of people have reasons to hate the man for his arrogance. THe guy knows nothing about research and the entire A*Star is filled with yes women and yes men. Pathetic.
So are you claiming that Dr. Lee does not have political connections? That she knows more about research than Prof Sydney Brenner? -
so how do you explain someone like Mr. Ong Chit Chung an MP and a Historian by training running a scientific establishment as 'President' of Davos Life Sciences? source parliament.gov.sgOriginally posted by Cystaire:Yes I understand what you mean.
Though Mr Yeo as an engineer doesn't appear appropriate, Dr. Lee's credentials are not suitable for science either, as she was trained with a purely medical background.
I hope people understand that medicine =/= science, the culture behind each field is often opposite to each other. Medicine is not closer to science than engineering... I have been appalled at how poor the scientific knowledge of local doctors can be.
The first batch of MD/PhDs who will be truly apt to lead the field, will not be returning until couple of years later.
-
No. Read. I did not make such a claim nor even contrued one. I merely replied to the notion that a non-science person in charge of a science organisation which is patently absurd.Originally posted by Cystaire:I agree Mr Yeo does have an attitude and brash words. However, the biomedical push was based on consultation with Prof Sydney Brenner, and not the single-handed decision of Yeo alone.
So are you claiming that Dr. Lee does not have political connections? That she knows more about research than Prof Sydney Brenner?
Consultation or not, the implementation of the whole idea is obviously a Singaporean in nature which is simply not possible in the field of Science. Little wonder why JHU quit and left. -
MP Ong Chit Chung had been tested for his entrepreneurial abilities in private sector companies like Sum Cheong. Has he made a success of such companies like Sum Cheong.Originally posted by gill_hfc:so how do you explain someone like Mr. Ong Chit Chung an MP and a Historian by training running a scientific establishment as 'President' of Davos Life Sciences? source parliament.gov.sg
Goh Chok Tong openly boasted about ability of his MPs like Wong Kwei Cheong whom he was sure would bounce back from his losses in jakarta venture. Has Wong bounced back?
Sum Cheong sufferred losses and was finally taken over by Oei Hong Leong and some others. So, moral of the story is whatever talents and leadership pap has been telling the people as possessed by its MPs and ministers they were purely conjectures.
If Philip Yeo is so sure about his entrepreneurial abilities he should have proven his worth in restructuring the singapore economy in the last three recessions instead of blowing his trumpet only after the world economy recovers. -
Hear Ye! Hear Ye!Originally posted by robertteh:MP Ong Chit Chung had been tested for his entrepreneurial abilities in private sector companies like Sum Cheong. Has he made a success of such companies like Sum Cheong.
Goh Chok Tong openly boasted about ability of his MPs like Wong Kwei Cheong whom he was sure would bounce back from his losses in jakarta venture. Has Wong bounced back?
Sum Cheong sufferred losses and was finally taken over by Oei Hong Leong and some others. So, moral of the story is whatever talents and leadership pap has been telling the people as possessed by its MPs and ministers they were purely conjectures.
If Philip Yeo is so sure about his entrepreneurial abilities he should have proven his worth in restructuring the singapore economy in the last three recessions instead of blowing his trumpet only after the world economy recovers.
pappies always brag about top line; but it's the bottom line that matters... so ... all that glitters isn't gold... -
Incidentally the editorial comments in the Straits Times today touched on the debates between these two big wigs.
The editorial described the debates as between two schools of thought with one preferring a more focused research approach based on our own needs and resources more likely to produce results and the broad-brush approach in order to attract the world's best and produce our own world-class researches.
The editor nevertheless was too afraid to say that there is no strategising at all among all the researches as which are the ones we could excel or stand a better chance to succeed in.
So Dr Lee Wei Ling was right in saying that without such strategising we will be spending taxpayers' hard-earned monies without a clear direction of the kind of goals and results we could get.
I would say that the single most important issue in this debate actually is whether our government could implement our economic policy of upgrading our economy well and successfully in practical terms and not the principles of attracting or not attracting enough or whether the spending of large sums of monies would be worth it.
It is in the area of how and implementation which is the real issue. It is in this area that government often fails to deliver and that is the larger issue behind this debate.
If anything needs to be reexamined it will be the system of government - whether we have built up our implementation capabilities and system of government to deliver results,
The principles might well be acceptable - attracting world-class players and MNCs and spending of monies where it is worth spending.
Whether we could get returns and results and how efficient and effective are our scholars in implementing these plans is the real issue.
If we cannot answer this type of issue raised in this debate then we are going to have more NKF and shin corp and souzhou losses. Then we will see our ministers trying to explain their mistakes away making them look like R & D will take time or it is a long-shot commercial decision. -
What's your evidence that 'there is no strategising at all among all the researches...'? There has been a detailed and comprehensive strategy mapped out and ASTAR is proceeding according to that strategy. The thing is: not all of us involved in the field agree with the strategy. Some gain alot and some loses alot with this strategy. Lee Wei Ling is one of the losers..Originally posted by robertteh:The editor nevertheless was too afraid to say that there is no strategising at all among all the researches as which are the ones we could excel or stand a better chance to succeed in.
Implementation of a policy has always been the strength of this government. Lee Wei Ling and others are skeptical about the appropriate nature of this policy, not about the ability of the givernment to implement it.Originally posted by robertteh:It is in the area of how and implementation which is the real issue. It is in this area that government often fails to deliver and that is the larger issue behind this debate.
If anything needs to be reexamined it will be the system of government - whether we have built up our implementation capabilities and system of government to deliver results.
Our current research strategy focuses on cutting-edge technology that may yield top returns, in diseases that western nations are interested in and what pharamaceutical companies are prepared to invest in. Hepatitis is a bigger problem in Asia but unless the patients are able to pay top bucks for the fruits of research, it makes no sense to put too much into it. Head injury may be a very fascinating field to study, but the returns may not be as attractive as developing a cancer vaccine against br_east cancer, for example. -
quote:Originally posted by robertteh:
Well you want evidence that the economic structuring plans supposedly to upgrade the economy to value-adding technology-driven model from the 1970s have not been implemented by the ministers or the ex- EDB chief too well?
The editor nevertheless was too afraid to say that there is no strategising at all among all the researches as which are the ones we could excel or stand a better chance to succeed in.
What's your evidence that 'there is no strategising at all among all the researches...'? There has been a detailed and comprehensive strategy mapped out and ASTAR is proceeding according to that strategy. The thing is: not all of us involved in the field agree with the strategy. Some gain alot and some loses alot with this strategy. Lee Wei Ling is one of the losers..
Let us re-look at some of the earlier years' GDPs and trade data for the periods 1970s - 2003 especially how we came to experience the most prolonged recessions of 1993-1995, 1997-1999, 2002-2004 again if you like.
Despite all the big monies spent on biomedical researches, have we succeeded in making a dent on our manufacturing in terms on job creations for these period from our biomedical researches?
How many of our new graduates from universities during 1999-2004 when we were spending big bucks in these researches were absorbed by these biopolis and the spin-offs created from such capital-intensive investments.
During the last three recessions, we took about the longest than Korea, Taiwan and HongKong to recover from recession. Why so if our big biopolis was producing results? What did our minister for manpower, and trade and industry say.
Still remember what they said : Singapore is too small and being vulnerable to external conditions, the government cannot do anything in stoping these MNCs and foreign companies from leaving and retrenching our workers.
I am sure if the biopolis in our economic restructuring has been progressing well indeed as stated by the ministers and EDB chief they would not be so helpless as to blame everything on external conditions and lack of retraining by the workers.
If you are to re-read the Straits Times of 1999-2004, I am sure you will come across ministers saying practically the only solution is for people to be re-trained as muli-tasking cleaners, taxi-drivers, nurses or teachers ...
If biomedical researches have worked well due to good strategizing we could have discovered some new drugs like vaccine for bird flus, as the Taiwanese researchers have done with lesser fanfare and boasting.
Of the smaller amounts spent on their own strategic economic restructuring plan including some lesser biomedical hubs, the Koreans and Taiwanese have done better and climbed out of their recessions earlier.
They do not have to keep raising fees or taxes against their own people in doing so as our ministers have done. They solved their problems by practical entrepreneurship and creativity instead of seeking scapegoat of the people.
The ministers and Philip Yeo have only been wringling their hands or trying to put their own failures on some bond breakers or male NS men. It is a shame that despite being paid super-peanut salaries all that they could do is to blame the people for lack of retraining or skills.
What has the government been doing spending people's millions on workers' training since 1970s? I asked this question at one seminar of Spring and it was admitted by the Spring speaker that the training of workers during the past twenty years or so have not quite produced the desired results. So who was at fault - spring, edb, ministers or workers.
The whole system is full of grand concepts or one kind or another full of hot air and talking but little implementation skills or abilities.
That is why our economy was still not restructured as intended since the 1970s when Goh Keng Swee was already planning to upgrade it to some value-adding technology-driven model.
Why, we took so long and there was still all the talking about R&D and more R& D to no end?
Many workers who lost their jobs in the 1997 recessions remained unemployed and those who were re-employed had their wages dropping below that of the 1980s. What do our ministers do to help these workers - more gst and more fee increases I suppose?
The above I am sure are sufficient evidence to show that our EDB chief and all the ministers are only interested in talking but little strategizing with the support of all our own unemployed and highly educated human and land resources.
One could only wonder why we are paying millions to the ministers and yet we keep hearing excuses after excuses. The latest excuse seems to be we still have to wait for indefinite period for such billion-dollar investments on biomedical researches to bear fruits. That is why our ministers and EDB chief have failed to catch the bull by the horn so to speak to stop playing with concepts and giving excuses.quote:Originally posted by robertteh:
With the above-stated evidences as published in the Straits Times showing the general helplessness in upgrading the economy to value-adding technology-driven model, isn't it enough that ministers should now learn their lessons and not to continue to play with one concept after another of attracting so-called foreigners or foreign companies or world bests.
It is in the area of how and implementation which is the real issue. It is in this area that government often fails to deliver and that is the larger issue behind this debate.
If anything needs to be reexamined it will be the system of government - whether we have built up our implementation capabilities and system of government to deliver results.
Implementation of a policy has always been the strength of this government. Lee Wei Ling and others are skeptical about the appropriate nature of this policy, not about the ability of the givernment to implement it.
Our current research strategy focuses on cutting-edge technology that may yield top returns, in diseases that western nations are interested in and what pharamaceutical companies are prepared to invest in. Hepatitis is a bigger problem in Asia but unless the patients are able to pay top bucks for the fruits of research, it makes no sense to put too much into it. Head injury may be a very fascinating field to study, but the returns may not be as attractive as developing a cancer vaccine against br_east cancer, for example.
They could well be wasting more valuable time when Taiwan researchers armed with more strategic plans and implementation skills as espoused by practical entrepreneurs like Stanley Shih is going to discover bird flus vaccine whereas we are still waiting and waiting for some elusive breakthrough or foreign talents to help in breaking through. -
The rapid rise in biomedical exports in the recent years has been well publicised. Surely you are aware that exports in the biomedical industry has grown by a startling 30%, contributing much revenue to the economy. There are new jobs being created in the biomedical industry, but there is a mismatch between the jobs created the skillset of our workers. Many local workers either do not have the required skills in the R&D labs or refuse to work in clean rooms that are necesary in the manufacturing plants. That is why we need to change the attitude of our workers and re-train them for the new jobs that are available.Originally posted by robertteh:Despite all the big monies spent on biomedical researches, have we succeeded in making a dent on our manufacturing in terms on job creations for these period from our biomedical researches?
How many of our new graduates from universities during 1999-2004 when we were spending big bucks in these researches were absorbed by these biopolis and the spin-offs created from such capital-intensive investments.
During the last three recessions, we took about the longest than Korea, Taiwan and HongKong to recover from recession. Why so if our big biopolis was producing results? What did our minister for manpower, and trade and industry say.
You are talking about recesions since 1993, way before our biomedical indiustry has been conceived. It requires lead time to grow this industry, given how few of our students study biology in secondary schools and universities. The past recessions illustrate the dangers of relying on just our IT industry to bring in the manufacturing revenue. That is exactly why this life sciences initiative is necessary to broaden our economic base. Singapore has recovered from these recessions and emerged stronger than ever, which is a testament to the leadership of the government. What has the Opposition parties done for Singaporeans during all these recessions?
Because too many Singaporeans are just sitting on their backsides and ranting like you instead of acquiring the skillsets that are needed for new growth industries. When students from China are working hard and sweeping all our top prizes, our students are learning from the adults and complain all day. Burying your sand in the sand will not make you fit to work in the biomed industry.Originally posted by robertteh:That is why our economy was still not restructured as intended since the 1970s when Goh Keng Swee was already planning to upgrade it to some value-adding technology-driven model.
Why, we took so long and there was still all the talking about R&D and more R& D to no end?
The only way to help these workers is to re-train them for new jobs that are available. There are plenty of jobs in wafer fabs but half the workers are foreigners because our locals refuse to take them. If our unemployed workers are so desperate, why won't they take the jobs? Oh no! They would have to work shifts and be suited up in the clean room...it's uncomfortable...excuses, excuses. Fact is: they are not hungry enough for the jobs, which go to the Malaysians and the Chinese.Originally posted by robertteh:Many workers who lost their jobs in the 1997 recessions remained unemployed and those who were re-employed had their wages dropping below that of the 1980s. What do our ministers do to help these workers - more gst and more fee increases I suppose?
Talk is cheap. Make the vaccone and then talk.Originally posted by robertteh:They could well be wasting more valuable time when Taiwan researchers armed with more strategic plans and implementation skills as espoused by practical entrepreneurs like Stanley Shih is going to discover bird flus vaccine whereas we are still waiting and waiting for some elusive breakthrough or foreign talents to help in breaking through. -
How about: to analyse the history of failures and to implement steps to avoid them?Originally posted by gill_hfc:I have always failed to understand how scientific organisations can be headed by individals with no scientific background. For examply we have Dr. Ong Chit Chung the MP who is purely trained in History holding the title of 'President of Davod Life Science Pte Ltd'. What has history got to do with current day medical science??? someone care to explain?
-
hope the princess would also tell her emperor that many of his ministers are strategising public policies in ivory tower.Originally posted by Cystaire:This past few days there has been a war of words between two powerful members of the establishment, Mr Philip Yeo of A*Star and Dr Lee Wei Ling of NNI about the current state of the biomedical research industry.
Is it thriving or ailing?
Dr Lee commented that (ST 8 Feb)...
"This is not a matter of one-upmanship. We're talking about billions of dollars of tax-payers' money. I will not let this mistake continue."
From Mr Yeo's perspective...
"The debate has drawn strong words from both sides, with outgoing A*Star chairman Philip Yeo remarking that Dr Lee had not set foot into the biomedical centre Biopolis, where key research institutes are clustered."
On the other hand, Dr Lee countered that...
"I would say that Mr Philip Yeo, having never practiced as a doctor, is strategising about biomedical research directions in an ivory tower. That is why he can dismiss hepatitis B and head injury as unimportant." -
quote:Originally posted by robertteh:
You have asked for evidence why people and the World Bank are saying why our biopolis has not been successful and their chances of success is at best 50/50 and I have given you relevant evidence in your absence of the ministers and EDB providing the data and now you are not accepting such evidences.
Despite all the big monies spent on biomedical researches, have we succeeded in making a dent on our manufacturing in terms on job creations for these period from our biomedical researches?
How many of our new graduates from universities during 1999-2004 when we were spending big bucks in these researches were absorbed by these biopolis and the spin-offs created from such capital-intensive investments.
During the last three recessions, we took about the longest than Korea, Taiwan and HongKong to recover from recession. Why so if our big biopolis was producing results? What did our minister for manpower, and trade and industry say.
OM:-
The rapid rise in biomedical exports in the recent years has been well publicised. Surely you are aware that exports in the biomedical industry has grown by a startling 30%, contributing much revenue to the economy. There are new jobs being created in the biomedical industry, but there is a mismatch between the jobs created the skillset of our workers. Many local workers either do not have the required skills in the R&D labs or refuse to work in clean rooms that are necesary in the manufacturing plants. That is why we need to change the attitude of our workers and re-train them for the new jobs that are available.
You are talking about recesions since 1993, way before our biomedical indiustry has been conceived. It requires lead time to grow this industry, given how few of our students study biology in secondary schools and universities. The past recessions illustrate the dangers of relying on just our IT industry to bring in the manufacturing revenue. That is exactly why this life sciences initiative is necessary to broaden our economic base. Singapore has recovered from these recessions and emerged stronger than ever, which is a testament to the leadership of the government. What has the Opposition parties done for Singaporeans during all these recessions?
The relevant apple-to-apple evidences should actually come forth from the ministers and EDB chief and not for the people to provide.
Nonetheless given the kind of autocratic government that we have we have all to take what they claims as job creations with a big pinch of salt. So far all the job creation data as questioned by Dr. Lee Wei Ling were quite muddled probably deliberately kept that way like in the nkf saga so as to avoid accountability. People are no fools to believe their so-called biopolis sucecss and they probably will have to bear with such denials as happened in NKF.
The correct approach to arrive your required evidences actually is for the ministers and EDB to keep track of biomedical spending with coordinated call-centre processes which people can view on weekly basis to show progress as to whether biomedical spending has produced returns : (1) Major discoveries like bird flu vaccines or cure of certain cancer (2) ROI on our multi-billion investments in this area.
Philip Yeo cannot just make claims of success based on his own generation and he must invite all concerned including the ministers witnessed by such reliable data to review the efforts periodically and decide whether to continue or close down or phase out any over-ambitious projects to avoid throwing away monies which do not hold promise or assurances of returns.
Are our ministers and the government prepared to change their system and make themselves more accountable on such spendings which may not produce any returns of usefulness to our people many of whom despite all the hghly trained skills and education are still unemployed after recessions retrenchments.
Can we truly claim that the biopolis has been successful just by claiming that they create some jobs. Who analyse these jobs as value-adding jobs which were directly attributable to the biopolis? The world bank has expressed great doubts about so-called success of our biopolis. Like what Dr Lee Wei Ling has pointed out the recent job creations in our various industries do not necessarily arise from our biopolis. Many of the firms were set up here due to our factors like our IP laws, and a more English educated work force. Mostly if we have some creations of jobs recently it is generally attributable to world recovery and the rise of China and India which provide us with some opportunities finally to emerge out of our desperate straits.
So it will have to be the ministers and and civil servants paid to do their jobs to restructure the economy. Where they have failed to do so during the 1990s recessions, it is for them now to reexamine their policy mistakes and implementation shortfalls and not to continue to push the problems back to the people - giving excuses like their being lacking in skills. Are our early highly educated unemployed short of skills? Something must be wrong with our education system.
In addition, to my advice that the ministers and EDB must own up and not give any more excuses like the NKF I have shown you evidences from the past recessions that they have been continuously giving excuses for their inabilities in upgrading the economy talked about since 1970s to the value-adding model. What went wrong? Are they not going to do something to focus on niche areas and make better use of our highly educated work force many of whom even with university education are becoming the newly highly educated unemployed.
What is wrong ? We are paying our ministers million-dollar salaries only to hear more excuses and they have the cheek to ask people to give them solutions ever so often.
Don't make our ministers who are supposed to be talented world-class leaders the laughing stock of the world community.
People are not fools to take what they say about job creations at face value. They seem to be only interested in their own GDP or surpluses which hardly help to solve problems faced by the majority.
All that happened during recessions is that people kept hearing excuses like the government could not do anything about some so-called globalisation phenomenon known as structural unemployments.
When the world economy finally recovers they were so quick to claim that their biopolis is now working wonderfully without any reliable and verified figures to back up their claims. It is like the nkf saying what they like for years and when exposed in a proper scrutiny, all the worms will be crawling out of the cans.
There were misfits between the government ERC plans obviously as you have now admitted that jobs that were created in some factories are unable to be taken up by our citizens. Who causes these poor implementations of the ER plans.
Citizens are not paid to give ideas or help in implementation of these ER plans since 1993 when the economy was floundering due to lack of efforts by EDB in upgrading to the value-adding model to catch up with the Koreans and Taiwanese whose IT, biomedical and technologies are producing international brand names.
Has the ministers succeeded in upgrading the economy since the 1990s? If they have why do we still have to retired all the young scholars and highly educated graduates in the early 40s.
Obviously the leaders have failed in their past 3 economic restructuring plan and are now at the instance of the world recovery tried to make claims that their biomedical R&D researches are doing well.
Just go and look back on our economic performance, for how many quarters of 2006 have these industries connected to the biopolis been making advances in the form of breakthrough and job creations and using the GDP or other close-door statistics which hardly convince any one.quote:Originally posted by robertteh:
I can tell you that people are not fools to believe all the craps about biopolis being successful. It is the responsibility of the paid ministers and civil servants to implement the economic restructuring plans aimed at upgrading the economy to a value-adding technology-driven model as announced for many years. They will not easily believe such excuses like they are at fault for not implementing the restructuring or being too laid back on their skill training.
That is why our economy was still not restructured as intended since the 1970s when Goh Keng Swee was already planning to upgrade it to some value-adding technology-driven model.
Why, we took so long and there was still all the talking about R&D and more R& D to no end?
Because too many Singaporeans are just sitting on their backsides and ranting like you instead of acquiring the skillsets that are needed for new growth industries. When students from China are working hard and sweeping all our top prizes, our students are learning from the adults and complain all day. Burying your sand in the sand will not make you fit to work in the biomed ndustry.quote:Originally posted by robertteh:
Just advise the ministers and EDB not to make unsubstantiated claims and come up with information and data to show breakthrough researches and applications in actual implementation like a new cure for diseases or bird flu.
Many workers who lost their jobs in the 1997 recessions remained unemployed and those who were re-employed had their wages dropping below that of the 1980s. What do our ministers do to help these workers - more gst and more fee increases I suppose?
The only way to help these workers is to re-train them for new jobs that are available. There are plenty of jobs in wafer fabs but half the workers are foreigners because our locals refuse to take them. If our unemployed workers are so desperate, why won't they take the jobs? Oh no! They would have to work shifts and be suited up in the clean room...it's uncomfortable...excuses, excuses. Fact is: they are not hungry enough for the jobs, which go to the Malaysians and the Chinese.
If they researchers are still unable to come up with tangible discoveries or products which are turned into manufacturing and jobs, let us forget about any such projects and concentrate in doing something else more worthwhile to do.quote:Originally posted by robertteh:
Yes people's talk are cheap but if our ministers and EDB talk cheap it will be time they go and let someone else take over like the clintons or mahathirs.
They could well be wasting more valuable time when Taiwan researchers armed with more strategic plans and implementation skills as espoused by practical entrepreneurs like Stanley Shih is going to discover bird flus vaccine whereas we are still waiting and waiting for some elusive breakthrough or foreign talents to help in breaking through.
Talk is cheap. Make the vaccone and then talk. -
Actually I believe that the only reason why Philip Yeo hasn't been kicked out for his arrogance is because he has a whole lot up his resume to be arrogant about. And the only reason why he gets all these attention, back then as chairman EDB and now as chairman ASTAR, is because he dares to make radical changes. That is probably why he gets appointed to these places, to lead the change in industry, like he did with the high-tech industries as chairman EDB. Indeed he probably knew nothing about biomedical research when he first joined ASTAR, to any other possible candidate with research background, what would they know about industry in Singapore?Originally posted by Fingolfin_Noldor:The only reason why Philip Yeo hasn't been kicked out for his stupidity is because of his political connections. Lots of people have reasons to hate the man for his arrogance. THe guy knows nothing about research and the entire A*Star is filled with yes women and yes men. Pathetic.
I think that when it comes to positions like that, it is a lot more about the potential to lead and make the right far-sighted decisions, rather than knowledge about the job area. Of course it would help, but the ability to learn on the job, to be clear and perceptive far supercedes it. -
The situation is created by our lack of entrepreneurial talents among our academically oriented top government leaders.Originally posted by reve82guy:Actually I believe that the only reason why Philip Yeo hasn't been kicked out for his arrogance is because he has a whole lot up his resume to be arrogant about. And the only reason why he gets all these attention, back then as chairman EDB and now as chairman ASTAR, is because he dares to make radical changes. That is probably why he gets appointed to these places, to lead the change in industry, like he did with the high-tech industries as chairman EDB. Indeed he probably knew nothing about biomedical research when he first joined ASTAR, to any other possible candidate with research background, what would they know about industry in Singapore?
I think that when it comes to positions like that, it is a lot more about the potential to lead and make the right far-sighted decisions, rather than knowledge about the job area. Of course it would help, but the ability to learn on the job, to be clear and perceptive far supercedes it.
If we do have a Li Ka Shing mind among our ministers instead of mostly legally qualified and civil-service technocratic type of leaders we might have achieved greater results by now with someone having the right vision to orchestrate the whole economic restructuring.
Therefore we have no choice but to tolerate Philip Yeo's narrow-minded way of promoting incentivising of investment which is far from strategic or technology-driven or value-adding or aimed at maximising our human resources many of whom are highly trained and educated but under-employed.
So with legalistic type of government the only way to run the economy will then have to be bureaucratic with spewing of all the laws and controls and taxing and recovering costs instead of facilitating attainments of value-adding type of business.
We now have to catch up so that we are not at the mercy of China and India who need not learn from our bureaucracy model at all and they are better off for that perception that they have little to learn from us.
The only thing other countries could learn from us is taxing and double-charging of fees and lands against the citizens but definitely not in promoting entrepreneurship and creating a pro-business environment to facilitate applications of ideas, knowledge and inventions and technologies. -
BTW, any one have the pic of MM Lee's Daughter?
-
The whole kingdom really support her ar?
-
Originally posted by oxford mushroom:
For one who demand evidence from others before making sweeping statements, what evidence have you to offer to substantiate your sweeping statements that "many workers ... refuse to work in clean rooms that are necessary in the manufacturing plants" ?
The rapid rise in biomedical exports in the recent years has been well publicised. Surely you are aware that exports in the biomedical industry has grown by a startling 30%, contributing much revenue to the economy. There are new jobs being created in the biomedical industry, but there is a mismatch between the jobs created the skillset of our workers. Many local workers either do not have the required skills in the R&D labs or refuse to work in clean rooms that are necesary in the manufacturing plants. That is why we need to change the attitude of our workers and re-train them for the new jobs that are available.
How many workers are needed in the clean room of a Bio-Medical manufacturing facility, when it is obviously to be highly automated ?
Are you assuming that in this 21st Century, such Bio-Medical Facility are labor intensive and require thousands of Singaporeans standing in assembly lines to weigh the chemicals according to predetermined formula, mix it in equal proportions, boil the chemical mix, adding the necessary color, manually pouring into tiny moulds to make the pills, stamp the logo on tiny tablets, hand wrapped each tablet, manually packing them into boxes, then into cartons ?
How many unemployed Singaporeans can the Bio-Medical Industry absorb ?
Was it not the blind blundering support of this Singapore Government to support the IT industry that got the entire education system geared towards producing the necessary labor for the different levels of engineers, supervisors, technicians, and assembly line workers ?
You are talking about recesions since 1993, way before our biomedical indiustry has been conceived. It requires lead time to grow this industry, given how few of our students study biology in secondary schools and universities. The past recessions illustrate the dangers of relying on just our IT industry to bring in the manufacturing revenue. That is exactly why this life sciences initiative is necessary to broaden our economic base. Singapore has recovered from these recessions and emerged stronger than ever, which is a testament to the leadership of the government. What has the Opposition parties done for Singaporeans during all these recessions?
Or are you blaming Singaporeans for blindly moving into the IT industry in a herd instinct while responding to the call from this Singapore Government ?
Singapore's response to the Life Sciences is not an initiative but a late reaction that came more then ten years late, and is nothing more then a catch-up game being played.
With Singapore's existing pool of skilled workers in the IT industry, surely someone at A-Star would have been brilliant enough to capitalise on our existing strength, and identify a path to link ourselves into a future Bio-IT world - a path that even CRAY Supercomputers have identified for themselves.
Where is your evidence to support your derogatory statement ?
Because too many Singaporeans are just sitting on their backsides and ranting like you instead of acquiring the skillsets that are needed for new growth industries. When students from China are working hard and sweeping all our top prizes, our students are learning from the adults and complain all day. Burying your sand in the sand will not make you fit to work in the biomed industry.
Are you not contradicting yourself with your arrogant intelligence - which has been proven more often then once to be hollow ?
Did you not mention that " It requires lead time to grow this industry, given how few of our students study biology in secondary schools and universities. " ?
With four years in secondary schools, two years in college, and at least four years in the universities - that will be a total of TEN YEARS before anyone is properly trained in the Bio-Science to be able to contribute in the Bio-Medical industry.
With the length of time taken to educate someone in Bio-Science, how long will it take to train an unemployed adult to fit into this industry ?
Do Singaporeans have any influence over the education system ?
Has it not been the Government attempt to herd Singaporean students into certain directions by means of available entry quota into various streams to meet the needs of skilled manpower to enter specific pet industries of the time ?
You must have got sand in your pants that work its way up your brain as you slinked around like a snake with your way of thinking - how else would you be so fixxated with sand in all your recent postings ?
Have you any evidence that the unemployed workers are desperate but will refuse to work in the wafer fabs due to the ridiculous reasons given ?
The only way to help these workers is to re-train them for new jobs that are available. There are plenty of jobs in wafer fabs but half the workers are foreigners because our locals refuse to take them. If our unemployed workers are so desperate, why won't they take the jobs? Oh no! They would have to work shifts and be suited up in the clean room...it's uncomfortable...excuses, excuses. Fact is: they are not hungry enough for the jobs, which go to the Malaysians and the Chinese.
For one with a boasted claim to PhD in medicine, somehow you seem to show your hollowness in simple common sense.
Have you researched into the future prospects of the wafer fab industry ?
Is it not a fact that the wafer fab industry has seen such intense competition and prospects expected to be lacklustre that cost cutting exercises have involved retrenchments ?
Those Malaysians that have been employed by the wafer fab industry are the low wage assembly line workers, which the industry have found to be more economical to employ than to re-train over-educated and over-qualified Singaporeans.
In the not too distant future, perhaps we will see a PhD qualified 'mushroom' working as a janitor in our Singapore hospitals.Talk is cheap. Make the vaccone and then talk.
Yes - 'talk is cheap' and you have made it cheaper with your arrogant hollow talk - confirming that empty vessel makes the most noise.
Considering your arrogant display in deriding unfortunate Singaporeans, it certainly reflect some instability of character on your part - I will not be surprised if you are a shorty in height - as well as in length. -
Ha... the IT sector died. It died because there was simply not enough private sector involvement and all the Govt jobs ended up in Govt company hands or MNC hands. Another reason why to suspect the biotech industry will end up like a failure like all the other great economic initiatives of the Govt. Silicon Valley of the east my bloody foot. More air than actual substance. At the root of the whole problem is the Govt's obsession with increasing cash that goes into their coffers and not cash into the hands of the individual as the Govt fears rich men and their influence. The more of corporate Singapore under their control the better.
The biotech sector is just another attempt to replace the electronics sector as the main driver of the manufacturing sector. Perhaps the Govt would set up another Chartered to be in the sector, only to have it fail because of poor business strategy and practices just as Chartered fell so far behind its more agile Taiwanese rivals that it had to run piggy back on IBM and AMD to get away from red ink. Chartered simply symbolised all things bad about corporate Singapore and is a mere symptom of the wider problem. Typical Govt strategy, typical outcome and typical nonsense that one should expect from a control freakish Govt who uses Confucianism as it can control the masses/sheep better, only to reward themselves richly when the economy does well or worse whatever. The Govt just enjoys talking up the country when in reality everything is just a deck of cards. Give it a good kick, and everything comes crashing down. -
its on yesterday's sunday times front pageOriginally posted by acwire_2125:BTW, any one have the pic of MM Lee's Daughter?
dont have a scanner
i got a shock when i saw her face
so manly
-
The Senior Minister also commented on the recent debate on whether Singapore is doing the right thing in investing so much in the biomedical industry.
Mr Goh said the debate - between A*STAR Chairman Philip Yeo and the Head of the National Neuroscience Institute Dr Lee Wei Ling - was a healthy one.
"Personally, I am happy that there is this intellectual debate that's taking place on this particular issue. As to who's right, who's wrong, it's not an issue you would know the answer immediately. R&D takes a long time for you to realise results. Maybe after 10 years, you'll say 'oh, luckily we did that' or maybe you'll say 'oh, what a waste of money!' But I think it's too early now to decide whether the A*STAR and its initiative is in the wrong direction," said Mr Goh. - CNA/ir -
Looks like a kongfu fighter rite,who????Originally posted by menoob:its on yesterday's sunday times front page
dont have a scanner
i got a shock when i saw her face
so manly -
bruce lee
-
Originally posted by robertteh:*snip*
Robert,
The editor nevertheless was too afraid to say that there is no strategising at all among all the researches as which are the ones we could excel or stand a better chance to succeed in.
So Dr Lee Wei Ling was right in saying that without such strategising we will be spending taxpayers' hard-earned monies without a clear direction of the kind of goals and results we could get.
I would say that the single most important issue in this debate actually is whether our government could implement our economic policy of upgrading our economy well and successfully in practical terms and not the principles of attracting or not attracting enough or whether the spending of large sums of monies would be worth it.
I am usually enlightened by your comprehensive analysis in many areas, but I am disappointed with your series of posts in this thread. Despite portraying yourself as an informed critic of the government, you have concentrated only pointing out Mr Philip Yeo's faults while apparently supporting Dr Lee without explaining your reasons why.
In addition, some of your articles are general criticisms of the government and not addressing the specific points in this debate.
Of course many of us are concerned with where the biomedical sector is headed.
However your posts misrepresent the issues.
It's not "Philip Yeo has no strategy" vs "Lee Wei Ling has strategy".
It's "Philip Yeo has one strategy" vs "Lee Wei Ling has another".
The government does have a niche strategy that prioritizes biomedical research in areas like cancer, heart disease and stem cells.
Dr. Lee disagrees with these areas and recommends head injury and Hepatitis B as better niche areas.
She thinks that the government is having aimlessly "shotgun approach", but if that is the case why did Philip Yeo close the Institute of Agrobiology?
Robert, if you are supportive of Dr. Lee's approach, then can you explain to the rest of us why you agree that Singapore has a unique advantage in head injury and Hepatitis B research compared to cancer and stem cell biology? -
Just to add on: Dr. Lee's recommendations on focusing on areas such as head injury...
Here's some statistics from MOH
I think Dr. Brenner's and Philip Yeo's recommendations to focus on areas such cancer and stem cell biology are still a lot more reasonable for the local population than on very specialized areas such as head injury and hep b. A huge part about the translational medicine component of biomedical research is being about to work with patients, and without a large patient base, it is going be difficult to establish.
[/url] -
OM,Originally posted by oxford mushroom:The rapid rise in biomedical exports in the recent years has been well publicised. Surely you are aware that exports in the biomedical industry has grown by a startling 30%, contributing much revenue to the economy. There are new jobs being created in the biomedical industry, but there is a mismatch between the jobs created the skillset of our workers. Many local workers either do not have the required skills in the R&D labs or refuse to work in clean rooms that are necesary in the manufacturing plants. That is why we need to change the attitude of our workers and re-train them for the new jobs that are available.
From this paragraph, I can see that you have also been confused by the difference between pharmaceutical manufacturing industry and biomedical research initiative.
Though it is true that the government's biomedical initiative has encouraged a number of pharmaceutical companies to come to Singapore after 2001, most of the money spent on the initiative has been used for infrastructure and manpower training.
So Dr. Lee is right that the biomedical investment costs has not paid off directly yet. The pharma are posting record sales, but pocketing much of this. Meanwhile the government is spending billions to build the foundations of a biotech industry.
In order to make megabucks, we still have to wait for our freshly trained scientists to join industry and set up our own pharma and biotech companies.
What we can agree on is that Dr. Lee thinks that it's all a mistake and IMHO that call is way, way too premature.