The blind leading the blinds,and expensive lesson!
-
Years back some smart one has suggested that Singapore should have more than one TV station to compete and so that viewers have more choice and thereby produced efficiency and cut cost. SPH just jumped into the bandwagon and started mediaWork and has 2 Channels, chen. I&U without even conducting a survey to check the viability of such venture, it bleeds profusely year after year because of the tiny market Singapore provides!Similarly Media Corp ventures into the newprint arena by starting Today newspaper and its earning nosedived.Now they merged after seeing stars for so many years!
In Singapore those in power uttered anything as they like and the masses just followed without doing their homeworks and took their own stands. The same incident happened in the transport sector where someone has retorted that Singapore should have more bus and Taxi providers so that they could compete and bring down prices and enhanced efficiency,but before you see any result Comfort merged with Delgro to go back to square one, and lately due to economic downturn, more taxi companies are flooding the road with more taxis driven by some highly over qualified jobless retrenched workers, zooming in and out of all the lanes driving as if the roads belong to them!
Many new car parallel importers are in the same straits and only a few are still kicking!Will this happen to the telecommunication sector and many other sectors in Singapore? -
The Fiasco for the TV station and MRT line prove that you have do some research before dipping into action.
I guess the media and transport company are too implusive in "listening" to the overpaid MP's suggestion of having more options.
Now, the MP are coming back to praise the merger of the media ???
Guess no one spare a thought for the staff who jump-ship a few years ago to the SPH station.
Now, they are back to square one or even worse, retrenched.
It is alway easy to suggest the textbook stuff of building more companies to drive up the competition.
But, it is not forgetting that you may be the one BSing, but the "followers" have to bear the loss and responsibility.
So, the morale of the story is that do believe and listen what the Minister say, you need to form your own judgement.
Just like the headline on the newspaper saying the job market getting better.
I believe it is getting better for the foreign talent and not the local.
-
lol! like ppl complain star hub monopoly so almost no english football to watch. so they want more cable tv operator. they say competition will bring down price.
aiyah people will complain depending on which way wind blow. got competition oso complain, no competition oso complain.
-
Policies which have failed include:
(1) Two child policy.
(2) Graduate mother policy,
(3) Gracious society,
(4) Cleaner environment - look at conditions of HDB estates.
(5) Safer Work sites,
(6) Swiss Standard of living
(7) Asset enhancement,
(8 ) Retirement scheme.
(9) Efficiency and Productivity,
(10) Community bonding - youths not coming forward to serve nations.
(11) Meritocracy - many talents are leaving.
(12) Openness, accountability and transparency,
(13) Economic competitiveness,
(14) Affordable medical care,
(15) Affordable housing,
(16) ERP and usage-based transportation to replace vehicle import/excise taxes.
(17) Growth triangle
(18 ) Asean solidarity
(19) Training and re-training of workers,
(20) Unemployment
(21) Cost competitiveness (Value adding approach not followed through)
(22) GLCs to stay out of local businesses.
(23) Re-positioning of economic strategy from lower-value to higher-value approach.
Why? Not enough careful work-based planning to increase efficiency and productivity. The emphasis was on policies, concepts, talents and leaderships not doable tasks.
-
Taken from CNA .
SINGAPORE: Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong says the Government's policy on keeping the Singapore media industry open remains unchanged, despite the largest shake-up in the sector since competition was introduced in 2000.
PM Lee also said the decision by MediaCorp and the Singapore Press Holdings to merge some of their operations was one of commercial viability and taken entirely by the two media giants themselves.
He was responding to questions on the MediaCorp-SPH deal to merge their mass market television and free newspaper businesses.
PM Lee feels that the Government was right to open up the media industry, adding that if a new player comes in and wants to start a newspaper or a new TV channel, the proposal will be examined.
He said: "It's not possible to say that you are not allowed to compete. It's like low-cost carriers. There are many players now.....one says $1 air ticket, another 49 cents and now it is 29 cents. Who are we to say $1 is alright and 29 cents is too cheap? We haven't made any U-turn, we've opened, the companies have tried, they haven't succeeded, so they are making an adjustment. It's not the status quo and it's not they are going back to where they were before."
PM Lee added: "It is not back to where we were before because you will still have TODAY newspaper with Streats in some form. You still have Channel U, they've said they are going to keep it. Channel i, I'm not sure."
The media industry was liberalised in 2000 when conditions were quite different from now and the expectations of both MediaCorp and SPH were that they would be able to grow the business.
But it proved too costly for the two companies and they have been 'bleeding'.
So, MediaCorp and SPH decided to merge their bleeding businesses to stem losses and improve shareholder value.
PM Lee said: "It's a recognitition of the market test, this is the outcome. You can't keep on bleeding. After 4 to 5 years, you have to make a hard-headed commercial assessment. So, the companies have decided, the Government did not interfere. We have to approve it and in principle we have agreed to it." - CNA -
To: Qitai,
When Comfort and Delgro dominated the taxi service, they gave the same reason that two are too many and they needed to merge.
A certain gas supplier saw that these two big boys are not competitive and decided to join the fray.
This is one specific case to show that some GLCs are simply not competitive.
Should the government really believe the two big stations cannot survive. Does it not not examine MediaCorp and MediaWorks may be paying their top management too high as has happened to Comfort's management.
SIA may not be the only GLC paying top management hyper salaries. If hyper salaries of executives are the reason for loss of competitiveness of Singapore companies among GLCs or others, should not such high costs come under the microscope as well. -
What's your point? You mean Government should interfer with business operation har??!!Originally posted by robertteh:To: Qitai,
When Comfort and Delgro dominated the taxi service, they gave the same reason that two are too many and they needed to merge.
A certain gas supplier saw that these two big boys are not competitive and decided to join the fray.
This is one specific case to show that some GLCs are simply not competitive.
Should the government really believe the two big stations cannot survive. Does it not not examine MediaCorp and MediaWorks may be paying their top management too high as has happened to Comfort's management.
SIA may not be the only GLC paying top management hyper salaries. If hyper salaries of executives are the reason for loss of competitiveness of Singapore companies among GLCs or others, should not such high costs come under the microscope as well. -
To:Qitai,
The point is clear : MediaCorp and Mediaworks are not competitive due probably to the high costs of executive salaries but not the small size of Singapore to sustain two TV stations.
If one is to examine the experiences of US, the trend is for broadcast media to shrink in size overtime due to preferences and differentiation in this industry.
This latest revelation that Singapore cannot sustain two stations must be a total surprise to Singaporeans as the government seemed to take the view not too long ago that Singapore can afford to have two stations and should diversify.
Should government make such a turnaround so very often - one moment diversity and the next merger.
The reason to my mind is loss of economic competitiveness due to high costs of executive manpower.
The high cost of GLCs should be looked into too just like SIA especially in view that such enterprises are financed by public funds. There is no reason why salaries of executives in GLCs or government cannot reflect stability of employment and be set lower than those of private sector companies.
-
So, you are saying that government should interfer with the business operation of these companies??!! And tell them how much they should pay their executives??!!Originally posted by robertteh:To:Qitai,
The point is clear : MediaCorp and Mediaworks are not competitive due probably to the high costs of executive salaries but not the small size of Singapore to sustain two TV stations.
If one is to examine the experiences of US, the trend is for broadcast media to shrink in size overtime due to preferences and differentiation in this industry.
This latest revelation that Singapore cannot sustain two stations must be a total surprise to Singaporeans as the government seemed to take the view not too long ago that Singapore can afford to have two stations and should diversify.
Should government make such a turnaround so very often - one moment diversity and the next merger.
The reason to my mind is loss of economic competitiveness due to high costs of executive manpower.
The high cost of GLCs should be looked into too just like SIA especially in view that such enterprises are financed by public funds. There is no reason why salaries of executives in GLCs or government cannot reflect stability of employment and be set lower than those of private sector companies. -
GLCs' are government-linked companies that follow government's salaries and promotion scales as well as yearly NWC recommendations.
Their salary costs are high and uncompetitive today for the same reason that civil service wage costs have been high. Therefore, Civil service and GLC wages need adjustments downwards to be competitive again.
People's costs of living can be lowered by appropriate downward wage adjustments in public sector including statutory boards and through outsourcing. The only problem is : the government reacts only in one or two extreme cases where the GLCs such as SIA or PSA cannot sustain their operations and only after the public has highlighted serious problems in fees charged by such GLCs.
Unfortunately, it was only after journalist like Lee Han Shi that showed facts and figures about HDB's going into the red that HDB was revamped. But such wage corrections only happened after serious problems were exposed. Why not put the problems of high wage costs of civil service and public sector under the microscope and provide better competitiveness instead of talking abuot "Singapore is too small to sustain two media players"
Why do I say the public sector wage costs are high? Over the period 1980-1990s, all kinds of promotional posts were created to induce so-called talents to join civil service, and NWC designed to award wage increases tied to growth in the public sector. HDB and Town Councils' combined wage costs are at least two to three times that of predeccesor HDB without making the estates any cleaner or more efficiently run.
Wage costs between private and public sectors widened over a 20 years time frame due to promotional posts and annual increases and all kinds of expansions into statutory boards.
If there is a problem with seniority wage system and there is a need to change to variable one, it will be for the public sector not the private sector to follow.
MediaCorp and MediaWorks could have taken actions earlier to trim high wage costs and cut down on unessentials instead of trying to say that Singapore is too small to sustain two media players. The high wage costs of civil service, statutory boards and GLCs are problems that result in fee increases currently being asked by Transport companies and Town Councils etc.. Private sector did not follow promotional exercises of such big scale and its wage system was generally market driven and not following government high-wage practices in the 1980-1990s. -
Even the blind can see the HIGH management are hogging the excess cost of the company.
The easy way out is alway to blame the lower level of workers and start retrenching and wage cuts.
Outsourcing and wage cut of the workers is the easilest solution.
For the minister, it is easy to pass a causal remark to cut the worker's wages without actually understanding and appreciating the real impact.
No minister have the creativity to solve the job situation, instead, following the steps taken by the US.
That lead to the question to the competence of the individual ministers.
Do they really have the management skill required to be a politician ?
Or are they just highly-educated and HIGHLY-PAID people without the required skill ?? -
Sorry. Read and read. Still don't know what your point is. Can put it in a simple sentence or not? And can don't drag in so many other things or not. Not that I disagree with your other points. But like that very confusing one to jump from one topic to another. Your post is 80% on other things. 20% on the topic only.Originally posted by robertteh:GLCs' are government-linked companies that follow government's salaries and promotion scales as well as yearly NWC recommendations.
Their salary costs are high and uncompetitive today for the same reason that civil service wage costs have been high. Therefore, Civil service and GLC wages need adjustments downwards to be competitive again.
People's costs of living can be lowered by appropriate downward wage adjustments in public sector including statutory boards and through outsourcing. The only problem is : the government reacts only in one or two extreme cases where the GLCs such as SIA or PSA cannot sustain their operations and only after the public has highlighted serious problems in fees charged by such GLCs.
Unfortunately, it was only after journalist like Lee Han Shi that showed facts and figures about HDB's going into the red that HDB was revamped. But such wage corrections only happened after serious problems were exposed. Why not put the problems of high wage costs of civil service and public sector under the microscope and provide better competitiveness instead of talking abuot "Singapore is too small to sustain two media players"
Why do I say the public sector wage costs are high? Over the period 1980-1990s, all kinds of promotional posts were created to induce so-called talents to join civil service, and NWC designed to award wage increases tied to growth in the public sector. HDB and Town Councils' combined wage costs are at least two to three times that of predeccesor HDB without making the estates any cleaner or more efficiently run.
Wage costs between private and public sectors widened over a 20 years time frame due to promotional posts and annual increases and all kinds of expansions into statutory boards.
If there is a problem with seniority wage system and there is a need to change to variable one, it will be for the public sector not the private sector to follow.
MediaCorp and MediaWorks could have taken actions earlier to trim high wage costs and cut down on unessentials instead of trying to say that Singapore is too small to sustain two media players. The high wage costs of civil service, statutory boards and GLCs are problems that result in fee increases currently being asked by Transport companies and Town Councils etc.. Private sector did not follow promotional exercises of such big scale and its wage system was generally market driven and not following government high-wage practices in the 1980-1990s.
Basically, I still don't know what you trying to say. Maybe I am too dumb. -
To:Qitai,
Sorry there was a bit of digression but high wage cost, one of the factors accountable for lack of success of MediaCorp and MediaWorks was not mentioned in the press release of MediaCorp and MediaWorks' intended merger.
This high cost problem affects all civil service, statutory board and GLCs as well.
It will take a gas supplier to tell Comfort and Delgro that what they say about about lack of fare adjustments was not very true. The gas supplier being paid lower executive salaries as compared with those in Comfort and Delgro definitely can compete better.
So, in a broad general statement "Singapore is too small to sustain two media players, there is now a change of earlier-announced government policy from diversity - the precedent policy back to square one - one dominant provider or merger.
There is a need to manage all media and transportation industries with clearer accountability and transparency. High cost factor due to highly paid executive staff should be examined too. To implement openness and liberalization, may be Straits Times should not be allowed to monopolize the print media so as to provide diversity to benefit all. -
If what you are trying to say is that the failure here is not due to diversity but rather due to poor management of individual business entity, then although I am not in a position to judge, I can believe that. However, even this does not mean the attempt to open up the media market is wrong. I sure enjoy having Channel U and I around.Originally posted by robertteh:To:Qitai,
Sorry there was a bit of digression but high wage cost, one of the factors accountable for lack of success of MediaCorp and MediaWorks was not mentioned in the press release of MediaCorp and MediaWorks' intended merger.
This high cost problem affects all civil service, statutory board and GLCs as well.
It will take a gas supplier to tell Comfort and Delgro that what they say about about lack of fare adjustments was not very true. The gas supplier being paid lower executive salaries as compared with those in Comfort and Delgro definitely can compete better.
So, in a broad general statement "Singapore is too small to sustain two media players, there is now a change of earlier-announced government policy from diversity - the precedent policy back to square one - one dominant provider or merger.
There is a need to manage all media and transportation industries with clearer accountability and transparency. High cost factor due to highly paid executive staff should be examined too. To implement openness and liberalization, may be Straits Times should not be allowed to monopolize the print media so as to provide diversity to benefit all.
Anyway, I never understand why your post was directed to me in the first place. I was meanly posting what was publish in CNA without adding any opinion of my own. -
To:Qitai,
Not to worry my posting to you as the high cost issue was connected to what you post.
Interactions will produce non-mainstream views to help understand our problems better, I believe.
To interact, there is a need to keep an open mind at all times. That is my opinion. -
Wats work based planning ? How will it solve the above problems ?Originally posted by robertteh:Policies which have failed include:
(1) Two child policy.
(2) Graduate mother policy,
(3) Gracious society,
(4) Cleaner environment - look at conditions of HDB estates.
(5) Safer Work sites,
(6) Swiss Standard of living
(7) Asset enhancement,
(8 ) Retirement scheme.
(9) Efficiency and Productivity,
(10) Community bonding - youths not coming forward to serve nations.
(11) Meritocracy - many talents are leaving.
(12) Openness, accountability and transparency,
(13) Economic competitiveness,
(14) Affordable medical care,
(15) Affordable housing,
(16) ERP and usage-based transportation to replace vehicle import/excise taxes.
(17) Growth triangle
(18 ) Asean solidarity
(19) Training and re-training of workers,
(20) Unemployment
(21) Cost competitiveness (Value adding approach not followed through)
(22) GLCs to stay out of local businesses.
(23) Re-positioning of economic strategy from lower-value to higher-value approach.
Why? Not enough careful work-based planning to increase efficiency and productivity. The emphasis was on policies, concepts, talents and leaderships not doable tasks. -
SingTel was a monopoly. With the introduction of M1 and Starhub paging and moblie prices drop because of the competition.
Whether a policy is good or not the results will be known after it has been implemented. There are always pros and cons. The important point is that the policies makers must be able to make changes and adjustments quickly.
I think the next merger will be that of the MRT lines. -
If the policies on diversities, competitions and mergers of transport companies, telecommunications and media have failed, in so many instances, let there be more modesty or objectivity in making further announcements on divestments, mergers or competitions of various industries to avoid misleading anyone. There may be errors of judgment but acceptance of fallibility is important part of governance - accountability and transparency.Originally posted by The Barracuda:SingTel was a monopoly. With the introduction of M1 and Starhub paging and moblie prices drop because of the competition.
Whether a policy is good or not the results will be known after it has been implemented. There are always pros and cons. The important point is that the policies makers must be able to make changes and adjustments quickly.
I think the next merger will be that of the MRT lines. -
To Robert
With regards to the 23 policies that have "failed", I disagree with some of them.
For example, the goal of 2 child policy was to reduce birth rate. The policy was successful. In fact it became too successful that we are facing the issue of not enough babies.
If you argued that the 2 child policy failed in the sense that its very success brought about a host of other problems than I would agree with with you.
There are many other "failed" policies which you mentioned which I think are debatable. For example, Cleaner environment, Retirement scheme, training and retraining of workers etc... To me, a policy would have failed, if it did not reached its inital objective.
my $0.02 -
Whether the 2-child policy was or was not successful had to be looked at in perspective. Policy wise, if it had brought down birth rate, that policy might be successful in itself but can it claim success in the context of the national longer term interest?Originally posted by geruicheng:To Robert
With regards to the 23 policies that have "failed", I disagree with some of them.
For example, the goal of 2 child policy was to reduce birth rate. The policy was successful. In fact it became too successful that we are facing the issue of not enough babies.
If you argued that the 2 child policy failed in the sense that its very success brought about a host of other problems than I would agree with with you.
There are many other "failed" policies which you mentioned which I think are debatable. For example, Cleaner environment, Retirement scheme, training and retraining of workers etc... To me, a policy would have failed, if it did not reached its inital objective.
my $0.02
Obviously our acclaimed insightful and foresightful leaders did not foresee a different world ahead - ageing populations and corresponding drop of economic competitiveness - and had to reverse its earlier 2-child policy. Can we say that such governance is one of foresight or insight as claimed if the leaders could not foresee future problems of such critical importance.
I attended a seminar by Spring once and asked whether after 20-30 years of workers' training programs, has Singapore become more competitive or productive. The answer given by Spring was : no.
If Town Council and HDB today after incurring two to three times its former pre-town council running cost cannot make the estates cleaner, can we say that the clean campaign is successful not to mentioned the loss of competitiveness in running of estates.
-
Singapore's several large business flip-flops, investment disasters and financial boo-boos happened in our FAMILY- RUN style corporation.
The big towkay dictates and approves everything. ... surely, he is NEVER always 100% right !