After that SIA accident in Taipei,DBS in HK,what's next?
-
For the past years, local media has been boasting about " Singapore best in this, first in the world in that", but on the contrary we have the most shocking air crash accident in Taipei airport a couple of years back and now another incredible DBS bank accident in HK?!?Moreover, we have the most notorious Chia Teck Leng in Asia!
What should we do next to bring back confidence and eradicate those incredible world shocking headlines? -
How about launching a media campaign a la Mastercard's priceless ?Originally posted by Heartlander:For the past years, local media has been boasting about " Singapore best in this, first in the world in that", but on the contrary we have the most shocking air crash accident in Taipei airport a couple of years back and now another incredible DBS bank accident in HK?!?Moreover, we have the most notorious Chia Teck Leng in Asia!
What should we do next to bring back confidence and eradicate those incredible world shocking headlines?
-
DBS HK bank incident is an 'incredible world shocking headline'??
Your perspective of global events in a world dominated by wars, terrorist kidnappings, terrorist bombings, medical epidemics, civil war, genocide, american corporate fraud involving billions of dollars (like enron, tyco, worldcom, adelphia, arthur anderson etc) is indeed "shockingly" limited! (or maybe you just dont read world news).
How about all the other air crashes that have occurred around the world in the last few years alone?
-american airlines crashes in new york in 2001 killing 260...shocking!!!
-air france concorde crashes in paris in 2000 killing 113....shocking!!!
-two russian airliners crash within minutes of each other in 2004 killing 89....shocking!!
-air china crashes in s.korea in 2002 killing 128...shocking!!!
-thai airways crashes in surat thani thailand in 2001 killing 101...shocking!!
-scandanavian airlines crashes in milan in 2000 killing 114...shocking!!
-gulf air crashes off bahrain in 2001 killing 143...shocking!!!
-Air Philippines crashes in davao in 2000 killing 131....shocking!!!
(and I have not even listed those involving numerous russian tupolev jets or african airlines or Sept 11 crashes)
The DBS HK incident involved 83 customers, with no loss of life, limb, or injury.....just a lot of anger and frustration......human error and regrettable.
SIA crash in Taiwan occurred during a typhoon where the runway remained unlit, the control tower gave go-aheads, and pilots still took the risk....also regrettable.
While the incidents may have made headlines, they are certainly not "incredible, world-shocking" .
As for those accolades which singapore has received, they are hardly self-coined. They were awards given by various international organizations, foreign publications, global surveysÂ…Â…nothing wrong with keeping keeping Singaporeans informed?
Between cooking up another storm to portray the govt in a bad light, remember not to drag the country, and singaporeans down as well. -
Your first statement is wrong, the media did not say that Singapore is best in everything, and I hope nobody ever think that we are the best in everything.Originally posted by Heartlander:For the past years, local media has been boasting about " Singapore best in this, first in the world in that", but on the contrary we have the most shocking air crash accident in Taipei airport a couple of years back and now another incredible DBS bank accident in HK?!?Moreover, we have the most notorious Chia Teck Leng in Asia!
What should we do next to bring back confidence and eradicate those incredible world shocking headlines?
Your second statement is not entirely correct. the air crash is shocking only to those singaporean who think that we are really faultless.
Instead of going out to paint a beautiful picture, singaporean should think. Why in singapore everything goes well but outside singapore things began to screw up big time? why in singapore so healthy but outside singapore drink water straight got lou sai? why JTC so good here but in shuzhou they were conned big time? ........singapore is best in singapore, no competition!! -
Instead of going out to paint a beautiful picture, singaporean should think. Why in singapore everything goes well but outside singapore things began to screw up big time? why in singapore so healthy but outside singapore drink water straight got lou sai? why JTC so good here but in shuzhou they were conned big time? ........singapore is best in singapore, no competition!!
With all due respect, I beg to differ, competition is almost ingrained in us ad nauseum. Day in and day out, from newspapers to govt exhortations, we hear of having to be better than the rest of the world...in airports, airlines, economies, ports etc. We are competing not only among ourselves but the rest of the world esp China and India. This begins from almost Day One of school..and has led to a competitive streak that places winning above all else. Even social graces or living a more balanced life used to take a lower priority. As Singapore begins to go regional and even international, and singaporeans and singaporean companies are encouraged to expand overseas, there will be a steep learning curve and mistakes are bound to be made. That's quite common and hardly surprising.
Hindsight is always 20/20 crystal clear.....your simplistic diagnosis of all ills as due to the lack of experience in competition is naive.
Asiaweek said this in 1996:
EVERY NOW AND THEN, a business deal comes along that just cannot fail. Or so the two governments backing the $20-billion Suzhou Industrial Park near Shanghai would like to believe. In 1992, patriarch Deng Xiaoping made the call for China to "learn from the experience" of Singapore.
In 2001, it said this:
A large share of the blame must be borne by the Chinese, who went back on promises they had made to Singapore and allowed a cut-rate competitor to be built. But failure lay at Singapore's doorstep too, for its failure to grasp the mercantilist nature of China.
Note the change in perspectives by foreign media as well. If there is a lesson to be learnt, it is that not everyone plays by the rules. With the benefit of hindsight, one will hopefully not forget lessons learnt. You also ignore singapore's successful foreign forays and foreign acquisitions since then.
By the way, the Suzhou Industrial Park (SIP) is not managed by JTC....it was taken over by the EDB from Keppel Corp, and managed under the China-Singapore Suzhou Industrial Park Management (CSSD).
It's normal that foreigners will try to knock us down, and make a few jibes...that's the nature of competition. As a singaporean (or at least I hope you are one), it's best to take a more level-headed approach. -
Originally posted by WindyDay:
The question remains, what went wrong? blame it on others? very typical of the arrogant singaporean attitude.
With all due respect, I beg to differ, competition is almost ingrained in us ad nauseum. Day in and day out, from newspapers to govt exhortations, we hear of having to be better than the rest of the world...in airports, airlines, economies, ports etc. We are competing not only among ourselves but the rest of the world esp China and India. This begins from almost day one of school..and has led to a competitive streak that places winning above all else. Even social graces or living a more balanced life used to take a lower priority. As Singapore begins to go regional and even international, and singaporeans and singaporean companies are encouraged to expand overseas, there will be a steep learning curve and mistakes are bound to be made. That's quite common and nothing surprising.
Hindsight is always 20/20 crystal clear.....your simplistic diagnosis for all ills as due to the lack of experience in competition is naive.
Asiaweek said this in 1996:
EVERY NOW AND THEN, a business deal comes along that just cannot fail. Or so the two governments backing the $20-billion Suzhou Industrial Park near Shanghai would like to believe. In 1992, patriarch Deng Xiaoping made the call for China to "learn from the experience" of Singapore.
In 2001, it said this: [b]A large share of the blame must be borne by the Chinese, who went back on promises they had made to Singapore and allowed a cut-rate competitor to be built. But failure lay at Singapore's doorstep too, for its failure to grasp the mercantilist nature of China.
Note the change in perspectives by foreign media as well. If there is a lesson to be learnt, it is that not everyone plays by the rules. With the benefit of hindsight, one will hopefully not forget lessons learnt. You also ignore singapore's successful foreign forays and foreign acquisitions since then.
By the way, the Suzhou Industrial Park (SIP) is not managd by JTC....it was taken over by the EDB from keppel corp, and managed under the china-singapore suzhou industrial park management (CSSD).
It's normal that foreigners will try to knock us down, and make a few jibes...that's the nature of competition. As a singaporean (or at least I hope you are one), it's best to take a more level-headed approach.[/b]
Experience comes with learning in real life, not in textbooks or in university. If you agree that there is still a steep learning curve, despite all that were "ingrained in us", isn't that saying that despite all the bombardment in schools....we are still need to learn, by going out there, isn't it? that to me is getting experience because despite the knowledge we have, we were inexperienced.
Doesn't matter whether Suzhou Industrial Park was managed by JTC or not, EDB went there with the experience of the whole singapore in building industrial parks. We thought we knew how to do, we thought we had the approval of the central government......we thought...... the reality is different. Talk to some local officials in suzhou, wuxi and shanghai and you will find what actually went wrong. Beijing is 2 hours by flight away!! LKY and LHL met Lee Lian Qing, the chinese minister who was behind this project in Beijing many times, could they tell him "YOU CHINESE WENT BACK ON YOUR PROMISE!" get real.
Only in singapore, a small place with a strong arm government, where one man's words can be carried out in details, for good or for bad. Outside of singapore, the world is different. Talk about naivety!!sigh....
If you are a singaporean and hope to be of any good to singapore, look at things in greater perspective, do not let the size of singapore limit your brain, nor your heart for you need a bigger heart to learn from people who disagree with you. Be humble! Displaced nationalism doesn't help. -
The question remains, what went wrong? blame it on others? very typical of the arrogant singaporean attitude.
Do we blame others? Answer: Yes and No.
Afterall, if promises and contracts between governments and municipal authorities are not kept by the other party, it is hardly our fault. What I am referring to is the rule of law. I don't encourage Singaporeans to be sneaky and manipulative of course, but I suppose a lesson to be learnt is to be aware and prepared for those intentions on the part of others. This is not merely an issue of 'blaming others' or 'arrogant attitude'. Afterall, just as European, American and even other Asian companies have learnt, doing business in China is a different ball game altogether. It's no longer playing by established rules, regulations and agreements, but guanxi and all.
As China becomes more integrated with the rest of the world, it too will have to play by established rules, the WTO rules, NOT its own rules.
Singapore learnt an expensive lesson of course, but our failure in one investment is not unique- many other companies are learning the same lesson, albeit in different ways.Experience comes with learning in real life, not in textbooks or in university. If you agree that there is still a steep learning curve, despite all that were "ingrained in us", isn't that saying that despite all the bombardment in schools....we are still need to learn, by going out there, isn't it? that to me is getting experience because despite the knowledge we have, we were inexperienced.
I think you confuse between the knowledge of competition which we are told to expect, and the reality of witnessing/undergoing it first-hand. Afterall, 'experience' means that it has to be ....well experienced, and not learnt from textbooks. An experience is a sensory phenomena, not an academic one. It's like learning in geography lessons how farmers grow rice in padi fields. Students know the process, but they also have to actually try it out under the hot sun in the padi fields if they want a complete education on how rice is grown. I think most people know the difference between the two. I agree with you on your point about Singaporeans being 'inexperienced'- it is the same point I brought up in my previous post.Doesn't matter whether Suzhou Industrial Park was managed by JTC or not, EDB went there with the experience of the whole singapore in building industrial parks. We thought we knew how to do, we thought we had the approval of the central government......we thought...... the reality is different. Talk to some local officials in suzhou, wuxi and shanghai and you will find what actually went wrong. Beijing is 2 hours by flight away!! LKY and LHL met Lee Lian Qing, the chinese minister who was behind this project in Beijing many times, could they tell him "YOU CHINESE WENT BACK ON YOUR PROMISE!" get real.
Singapore did know what to do, and everything was physically built according to plan. We did have the approval of the central government. But again, it boils down to managing the real intentions and expectations of the authoritities in Suzhou, not Beijing. Afterall, despite the determination of the central govt in Beijing, it is still unable to control or weed out corrupt officials in the provinces. Again the lesson is about being aware, and even prepared for others NOT to play by the rules when doing business in the mainland. While I am even prepared to agree with you that it doesn't matter if it was the JTC or EDB or CSSD managing SIP, I still prefer to be accurate with my details.Only in singapore, a small place with a strong arm government, where one man's words can be carried out in details, for good or for bad. Outside of singapore, the world is different. Talk about naivety!!sigh....
It's interesting that you keep absolving blame for the party which did not follow/broke the spirit of the agreement. From your perspective, you don't seem to think Chinese business practices warrant any blame or comment at all? Everything is just Singapore's fault? While you are not totally wrong to criticize Singapore, surely one should not overlook the other side of the story especially when it is the more pertinent side? Are we the only country who has been taken for a ride here? The answer is obviously no.
While it is appropriate to acknowledge that inexperience has caused us to be "conned" (to quote you), it's even more important to distinguish who the offenders and victims really are. It's not just a matter of fulfilling business obligations as agreed upon, but also about product dumping, price-undercutting, intellectual piracy, business red-tape, bloated bureaucracy, lack of adequate banking laws, weak business legislation in China. The country has to address these problems eventually if it hopes to establish trust and integrity internationally. This is something which I don't think anyone will disagree on.If you are a singaporean and hope to be of any good to singapore, look at things in greater perspective, do not let the size of singapore limit your brain, nor your heart for you need a bigger heart to learn from people who disagree with you. Be humble! Displaced nationalism doesn't help
I always look at things from a holistic perspective. though i am curious what the 'bigger perspective' you claimed i overlooked is. You blame the failure of the SIP solely on the inexperience of Singapore, and nothing else. I do not see you commenting much about Chinese flaws at all. Is that 'big perspective' for you? It looks suspiciously one-sided to me.
What has my alleged lack of humility got to do with this? Which statement did I make did you deem arrogant? I am puzzled you thought I was arrogant in my prior subdued comments.
I do not see my comments as 'misplaced' nationalism ( NOT "displaced" ). My observations (based on hindsight) acknowledged the inexperience of the Sg government, its failure to consider the complexities and real intentions of the Suzhou authorities, and more importantly the flawed practices of the Chinese authorities. I looked at both sides of the story if you ask me. I am speaking up for what is right, and I also gave you excerpts from the foreign media which acknowledged that the blame is largely the Chinese's. My comments are substantiated. That's hardly biased or unfair is it?
I am always tolerant and accepting of diverse opinions which is why I am engaging you on this. I am also willing to "learn" if there is something to be learnt- although NOT from you "yet". I do not ask that you accept everything I say, only that you try as much as possible to:
(1) get details right (esp. when you are the one to bring them up);
(2) see things from both sides (instead of solely blaming one party and ignoring the flaws of the other); and
(3) focus on the subject instead of me.
Cheers. -
I agree with sgdiehard that GLC failed in many of their overseas ventures because of competition which they never faced at home. Another reason is due to their arrogance. In the SIP project, our officials had actually snubbed the PRC local govt.
I was told that once LKY was teaching Deng Xiao Peng, then chairman of PRC, on how to rule a country, Deng replied that he would remember what LKY said when he became the mayor of Shanghai.
Well, if the boss can be so arrogant the officials can't be too humble. -
the only way to have no air crashes is to have no airline. if you have a car, can you 100% make sure it wont break down at all or have a single component fail for the next 5000 hours? tthat's only your car. people fail to see how complex aircraft are and the amount of maintenence and background work just so that 200 ordinary people can zip around the globe at near the speed of sound at 40 000 feet in pressurized aluminium cans. like someone who was complaining of how the RSAF should relocate or close down due to a threat that a fighter jet might lose its engine on take off and crash into a hdb flat, the only way to stop that is to ground every plane.
-
Originally posted by WindyDay:
The subject of this thread is about "What should we do next to bring back confidence and eradicate those incredible world shocking headlines?" My post asked Heartlander to think why things went wrong when we claimed we were good, and you jumped in and started shooting from the hip, commenting that "the perspective of global events is shockingly limited... naive....."
I always look at things from a holistic perspective. though i am curious what the 'bigger perspective' you claimed i overlooked is. You blame the failure of the SIP solely on the inexperience of Singapore, and nothing else. I do not see you commenting much about Chinese flaws at all. Is that 'big perspective' for you? It looks suspiciously [b]one-sided to me.
What has my alleged lack of humility got to do with this? Which statement did I make did you deem arrogant? I am puzzled you thought I was arrogant in my prior subdued comments.
I do not see my comments as 'misplaced' nationalism ( NOT "displaced" ). My observations (based on hindsight) acknowledged the inexperience of the Sg government, its failure to consider the complexities and real intentions of the Suzhou authorities, and more importantly the flawed practices of the Chinese authorities. I looked at both sides of the story if you ask me. I am speaking up for what is right, and I also gave you excerpts from the foreign media which acknowledged that the blame is largely the Chinese's. My comments are substantiated. That's hardly biased or unfair is it?
I am always tolerant and accepting of diverse opinions which is why I am engaging you on this. I am also willing to "learn" if there is something to be learnt- although NOT from you "yet". I do not ask that you accept everything I say, only that you try as much as possible to:
(1) get details right (esp. when you are the one to bring them up);
(2) see things from both sides (instead of solely blaming one party and ignoring the flaws of the other); and
(3) focus on the subject instead of me.
Cheers.
[/b]
I am not here to pass judgement on the suzhou project, who are "the offenders and who are the victims", nor am I here to identify "the flaws practices of the chinese" or "absolving anybody of the blames". I simply asked Heartlander to think, why things can go wrong and why the suzhou project could be wrong. What have singapore learned from the screw up in the suzhou project?? china don play by the rule? there is no rule of law? we din know the real intentions and expectations of the authorities in suzhou? the corrupt officials? If the chinese were like what you said then why are we still in china, in greater scales than the suzhou project? How is it that we do not have the same kind of problem with our various port projects, or the property development projects? why the project headed by the chielf screwed up?
Your posts offered nothing that we can learn from these incidents except for your judgement on the negative sides of the business in china (product dumping, price-undercutting, intellectual piracy, business red-tape, bloated bureaucracy, lack of adequate banking laws, weak business legislation in China....) and full of your self proclaimed "humility, looking at things with holistic view, always tolerant and accepting of diverse opinions, willing to "learn".......
Let me tell you this, you have no idea what went on in suzhou and you are the typical arrogant singaporean idiots who think you know.....you are just full of shits. Don't bother to reply my post as I know what singapore have achieved, and we don't have to run down others to show that it was not our fault when mistakes were made, but we may not have anymore reason to blow anymore trumpet if we do not know how to identify and recognise our shortcomings.
cheers. -
dunno about you guys but i blame our failure in china solely on our people who were in charge
the way they deal with people(locals) for one , is appalling as mentioned earlier
another thing is, maybe its a singaporean trait, but most of us seem to think that as long as we do our part well nothing would go wrong, without considering what is going on on the other side
-
Your posts offered nothing that we can learn from these incidents except for your judgement on the negative sides of the business in china (product dumping, price-undercutting, intellectual piracy, business red-tape, bloated bureaucracy, lack of adequate banking laws, weak business legislation in China....) and full of your self proclaimed "humility, looking at things with holistic view, always tolerant and accepting of diverse opinions, willing to "learn".......
sgdiehard,
Let me tell you this, you have no idea what went on in suzhou and you are the typical arrogant singaporean idiots who think you know.....you are just full of $$%&s. Don't bother to reply my post as I know what singapore have achieved, and we don't have to run down others to show that it was not our fault when mistakes were made, but we may not have anymore reason to blow anymore trumpet if we do not know how to identify and recognise our shortcomings.
You are quite right. I won't bother responding to your barrage of insults. I can see that you are not very interested in a calm discussion. The moment you see level-headed discussion is a cue that the only way you can force everyone to accept your points is to use derogatory language, engage in name-calling and insults. Of course I wasn't personally involved in the Suzhou project like you were, of course I have no real idea what went on in Suzhou unlike you with your first-hand experience there. In short, only you know everything there is with Suzhou IP and others don't. If others dare to voice an opinion about SIP, they quickly become a 'typical arrogant Singaporean'. If you have something to say, it is expected that everyone MUST accept it as wise, objective, and informative.
I don't see you backing up your opinion with articles or sources, or addressing the points I made. I posted two articles from Asiaweek which supported my earlier points (see above posts to read excerpts of these). Let me post one last EXCERPT of an article from the South China Morning Post. They report business as it is:
BUSINESS PITFALLS
Local rivalry hinders Sino-Singapore industrial park joint venture
FOO CHOY PENG
SCMP, Thursday, April 9, 1998
http://special.scmp.com/cbr/cbr199804/ZZZONQPZRKC_p2.html
Speaking the same language does not necessarily mean talking the same language. That is what Singapore investors have discovered - to their dismay - in Suzhou, the historic city 80 kilometres west of Shanghai.
Four years ago, Singapore sealed a joint-venture deal with the Chinese central government to turn 70 square kilometres of land in Suzhou into a model industrial park which eventually would provide work for 360,000 people and housing for 600,000.
Thus was born the China-Singapore Suzhou Industrial Park (CSSIP), to be built over 15 to 20 years at a cost of about US$20 billion to the developers - a Singapore consortium holding a 65 per cent equity stake and Chinese partners with 35 per cent.
On the surface, there was much to be upbeat over the joint-venture park. Singapore, with about 30 years' experience running industrial parks, had something to impart to the Chinese.
That the deal was signed by Vice-Premier Li Lanqing and Lee Kuan Yew - the father of modern Singapore - suggested there was nothing the country would hold back to ensure the success of the venture, hailed as the flagship of Sino-Singapore co-operation.
Singapore, in turn, would secure a foothold in the rapidly growing mainland economy.
The complexities and frustrations of operating in the unruly market that was China were well known, but many thought these could be reduced because Singaporeans speak the same language and the governments, at the highest level, shared a commitment to the project.
However, as the Singaporeans have discovered, speaking the same language does not make it any easier to carry out the deal.
The CSSIP might be a deal between Singapore and the central Government, but because it is sited in Suzhou, officials of that city exert more influence over it than Beijing.
That should not have been a problem, except that Suzhou had about three years before set up its own park, Suzhou New District.
Singapore sources said it chose to set up in Suzhou, knowing there was another park being developed, because at the time the joint-venture park was targeted at hi-tech and capital-intensive foreign investors, whereas Suzhou's own park was meant essentially to house industries evacuated from the city centre.
"The two parks were supposed to cater to different investment segments - one for the medium to high end, the other for the low end," an analyst said.
However, friction began to build after the CSSIP authorities complained that the supposed division of labour between the two developments had evaporated, with Suzhou's park competing with it for the same investors.
To the Singaporeans, the Suzhou city government was reneging on the fundamental promise that attracted them in the first place - an understanding that the park was a priority for Suzhou. Instead, they found their joint venture played down by local officials in favour of Suzhou's own park.
Differences over how the park should be managed were bound to occur, given the size and scale of investment. Singaporeans tended to be more straight-talking and business-friendly, but were often at a loss in dealing with the red tape and developing the guanxi necessary to oil the engines of business.
For their part, the Chinese tended to be highly bureaucratic and slow to respond to suggestions.
These were differences of working styles and methods and could have been settled with more patience and sincerity on both sides.
Matters came to a head when a Suzhou vice-mayor, on a business trip to Bonn last year, advised German investors to ignore the joint-venture park and head for the city-backed location because it had the full backing of the city government and all its resources.
He also said the Sino-Singapore park was not supported by President Jiang Zemin who, in fact, gave it priority over other Singapore projects nationwide.
The vice-mayor's words got back to Mr Lee, who visited China in December to seek clarification from Beijing on its position towards the joint-venture park. ..........................................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To other readers:
I leave it to you to interpret this article: if it is really ONLY a matter of Singapore's inexperience in competition in the mid 1990s, or if it is more of Chinese business practices. You may wish to acquaint/refresh yourself with this exchange by reading previous posts.
Since sgdiehard is only capable of insults when he finds himself at a loss where logic and tolerance of opposing opinions are concerned, I will cease to respond to this thread further.
(Sgdiehard will be happy that calm logic will no longer be around here to torment him as he publicly hopes- I grant him his wish since I derive no joy from encouraging crudity.
But he will also be happy to know that I will continue reading this thread and receive his follow-up insults with good humour.) -
A lot of MNCs lost money when they first went to China to invest, including Taiwanese and American companies. Must pay " school fees " when going overseas to invest.Originally posted by oldbreadstinks:dunno about you guys but i blame our failure in china solely on our people who were in charge
the way they deal with people(locals) for one , is appalling as mentioned earlier
another thing is, maybe its a singaporean trait, but most of us seem to think that as long as we do our part well nothing would go wrong, without considering what is going on on the other side
No Pain No Gain.
-
TO SGDIEHARD:
i think you neber read properly lah!
you say to windyday:The subject of this thread is about "What should we do next to bring back confidence and eradicate those incredible world shocking headlines?" My post asked Heartlander to think why things went wrong when we claimed we were good, and you jumped in and started shooting from the hip, commenting that "the perspective of global events is shockingly limited... naive.....
that gives impression that the wndyday say the whole sentence to you.
but i follow the whole posts in the past few days and this is windyday say to HEARTLAND (not to you!!!) when he disagreed dbs bank and air crash are NOT world gripping headlines:DBS HK bank incident is an 'incredible world shocking headline'??
windyday call u "NAIVE" in another DIFFERENT post:
Your perspective of global events in a world dominated by wars, terrorist kidnappings, terrorist bombings, medical epidemics, civil war, genocide, american corporate fraud involving billions of dollars (like enron, tyco, worldcom, adelphia, arthur anderson etc) is indeed "shockingly" limited! (or maybe you just dont read world news).Hindsight is always 20/20 crystal clear.....your simplistic diagnosis of all ills as due to the lack of experience in competition is naive.
i think fair comment wat...u blaem everything on sg govt...china side seem blameless, like angels like that. not everything is so simple ok..and not everything only one side take blame, the other side run away scot-free. he give u articles to read oso..u neber read meh? other people read, and oso folow these postings carefully hor...people wont be fooled when u try to combine windy's two posts to two people INTO one post for one person.
TO WINDYDAY!: don't stop writing lah! the people who write properly with no insults here ans there... all gone...this place sure overrun by people who only complain and complain with no proof...damn sian to read.
ok, back to preparing tues exam! -
Hello silverkris, pls advise me where do you find me "blaem everything on sg govt...china side seem blameless, like angels like that."Originally posted by SilverKris:TO SGDIEHARD:
i think you neber read properly lah!
you say to windyday:
i think fair comment wat...u blaem everything on sg govt...china side seem blameless, like angels like that. not everything is so simple ok..and not everything only one side take blame, the other side run away scot-free. he give u articles to read oso..u neber read meh? other people read, and oso folow these postings carefully hor...people wont be fooled when u try to combine windy's two posts to two people INTO one post for one person.
TO WINDYDAY!: don't stop writing lah! the people who write properly with no insults here ans there... all gone...this place sure overrun by people who only complain and complain with no proof...damn sian to read.
ok, back to preparing tues exam!
Anybody can quote any articles as they like, but I do not have to subscribe to the views in these articles. Read oredi then must agree meh? you have your own brain to think or not?
I ask just one simple question: "what did singapore learn from the suzhou screw up?" I asked:" why other port projects, investment by PSA were ok? why property projects, by Capitalland....were ok? why suzhou project cocked up?" You got answer or not? You read any answer from windyday?
You better study and learn for your exam, leave the lessons on suzhou project to the adults. LKY learned the lesson at age 80?
never too old to learn, huo dao lau, xue dao lau. Just don put the blame on others, then you will not make the same mistake at 70. 
-
TO SGDIEHARD
Hello silverkris, pls advise me where do you find me "blaem everything on sg govt...china side seem blameless, like angels like that."
wah damn busy, many people reply to my posts damn fast.
back to your questions: that's the observation i made after i read windy and your posts. he made himself quite clear that BOTH parties are at fault, but MORE so the CHINESE part:
My observations (based on hindsight) acknowledged the inexperience of the Sg government, its failure to consider the complexities and real intentions of the Suzhou authorities, and more importantly the flawed practices of the Chinese authorities. I looked at both sides of the story if you ask me.
but u only seem to have blame ONLY for sg govt, and no one else. examples:
Only in singapore, a small place with a strong arm government, where one man's words can be carried out in details, for good or for bad. Outside of singapore, the world is different. Talk about naivety!!sigh....
The question remains, what went wrong? blame it on others? very typical of the arrogant singaporean attitude.Anybody can quote any articles as they like, but I do not have to subscribe to the views in these articles. Read oredi then must agree meh? you have your own brain to think or not?
you certaily do not have to subscribe to others views. but it does give u an idea what others think, esp. foreign media and expert economic writers and analysts rite? u dont have to agree, but at least you know what people who monitor such things for a living say oso......even though u have a right to decide for yorurself, u think u more expert than the business writers?
no need to scold him 'idiot' and 'arrogant' rite? he oso never scold you wat....and everyone can see he writes quite clearly and calmly with evidence and no name-calling. in fact hor...i think too many insults from you can turn people off, give them impression u cannot argue on serious topics without using bad language.I ask just one simple question: "what did singapore learn from the suzhou screw up?" I asked:" why other port projects, investment by PSA were ok? why property projects, by Capitalland....were ok? why suzhou project cocked up?" You got answer or not? You read any answer from windyday?
of course i got answer...my answer is more aligned with windy's. i oso say that both sides are to blame, not just one side while the other side can run away scot-free. suzhou project in 1994, they learnt their lesson..that's why subsequent investments in china and elsewhere they do well. logical?
oso i think that chinese have to do business properly according to international rules..cannot say one thing, then do another thing. that's the real problem isnt it. and many other countries like usa, taiwan and japan..all say china cannot play by its own rules and break promises/agreements....esp if it wants to go international.
windyday oso say many times what lessons there are to be learnt. he did not just side with sg
1. If there is a lesson to be learnt, it is that not everyone plays by the rules. With the benefit of hindsight, one will hopefully not forget lessons learnt.
2. What I am referring to is the rule of law. I don't encourage Singaporeans to be sneaky and manipulative of course, but I suppose a lesson to be learnt is to be aware and prepared for those intentions on the part of others. This is not merely an issue of 'blaming others' or 'arrogant attitude'. Afterall, just as European, American and even other Asian companies have learnt, doing business in China is a different ball game altogether. It's no longer playing by established rules, regulations and agreements, but guanxi and all.
3. Again the lesson is about being aware, and even prepared for others NOT to play by the rules when doing business in the mainland.
and most importantly 4. My observations (based on hindsight) acknowledged the inexperience of the Sg government, its failure to consider the complexities and real intentions of the Suzhou authorities, and more importantly the flawed practices of the Chinese authorities. I looked at both sides of the story if you ask me.You better study and learn for your exam, leave the lessons on suzhou project to the adults. LKY learned the lesson at age 80? never too old to learn, huo dao lau, xue dao lau. Just don put the blame on others, then you will not make the same mistake at 70.
i am going to study now after this reply. if u want my further replies, wait till tomorrow. oso lky built this nation from scratch, u didn't. he led a country from poverty to prosperity, u didn't. he battled real issues and real people in real life, u didn't. its very easy to criticize people i think, but unless u achieve more than who you criticize, its best to remain humble. these are facts not propaganda..in case u want to accuse me.
bye bye!!!! -
To SilverkrisOriginally posted by SilverKris:TO SGDIEHARD
i am going to study now after this reply. if u want my further replies, wait till tomorrow. oso lky built this nation from scratch, u didn't. he led a country from poverty to prosperity, u didn't. he battled real issues and real people in real life, u didn't. its very easy to criticize people i think, but unless u achieve more than who you criticize, its best to remain humble. these are facts not propaganda..in case u want to accuse me.
bye bye!!!!
have I misread the posts from windyday? What did he say were the lessons learned? According to yr summary: Lesson 1, china do not play by the rules, which is the rules of law.
Lesson 2, beware and be prepared for those intentions of the other party, because they no longer play by established rules, regulations and agreements, but guanxi and all.
Lesson 3, again, be aware, and even prepared for others NOT to play by the rules when doing business in the mainland.
Lesson 4, must consider the complexities and real intentions of the Suzhou authorities, and more importantly the flawed practices of the Chinese authorities.
You can actually say it in one sentence, Suzhou project did work out as planned because the chinese din play by the rules (established, rule of law....) and the real intentions of the chinese authorities were not clear and they had flawed practices. What about us, well we were inexperienced so we didn't know they din play by the rules and the flawed practices.......
If these the only lessons sg government learned from Suzhou, good luck, better not invest in china anymore!!!
The excerpts from newsweek simply said that both parties are to be blamed but china should take bigger blame. What else?
The south china morning posts was careful to say that it was To the Singaporeans, the Suzhou city government was reneging on the fundamental promise...." "Singaporeans tended to be more straight-talking and business-friendly, but were often at a loss in dealing with the red tape and developing the guanxi necessary to oil the engines of business. " is it just inexperienced?
The SCMP was fair as they also commented on the Chinese "For their part, the Chinese tended to be highly bureaucratic and slow to respond to suggestions. "
Its final remark was more interesting "These were differences of working styles and methods and could have been settled with more patience and sincerity on both sides". no, it was the chinese who din play by the rules......
If all singaporean can say about Suzhou project is ONLY that China din play by the rules, they had other intentions and flawed practices......... tell me if this is lessons learned or an expression of arrogance??
By the way, talking about "foreign media and expert economic writers and analysts" whom you know are "people who monitor such things for a living say oso......" I don think I am more expert than the business writers, but at most I don buy their magazine if I don agree with them. But you know, if others don agree with them, their circulations can be limited you know. You know they need circulations to pay salary one leh. Lucky you, or windyday only quote those parts that are "correct", otherwise they will kenna leh. belly xiong one, you know, no salary.
Now the more interesting issue,
'lky built this nation from scratch', because the British built only the scratch, but lucky he got uncle Goh KS, Toh CC, Rajarathnam...and many others to help him loh. I didn't because I was not even born yet,
'He led a country from poverty to prosperity', otherwise u think ppl will vote him again.
I didn't lead a country because I haven't built it yet, I am still studying, next time when I grow up I will do my part, my father told me one.
'He battled real issues and real people in real life', yes, i think sometimes I play too much computer dealing with virtual ppl in virtual life. by the way, is windyday and silverkris real ppl?
I know it is very easy to criticize people, but no leh, I where got criticise lau li, I only question those who take public salary and spend public money! I am a citizen of singapore so a shareholder ok!! not meh? I can vote you know, but everytime no need to vote because of walkover. And lucky now LHL welcome everybody, especially young people to ask questions, I don need to achieve more than him, may be he just took the seat, haven't achieved much yet, hehe. But be fair, he deserves it. Can sit lah but can perform or not must wait and see, give him time, at least he not so old.
Ok, time to go. Have a good weekend but don spoil it with your exam ok. Must balance life, too much study no play oso no good.
bye!!! bye!!! -
TO SGDIEHARD
have I misread the posts from windyday? What did he say were the lessons learned? According to yr summary: Lesson 1, china do not play by the rules, which is the rules of law.
It’s a summary of windy’s arguments that BOTH sides were at fault…to counterargue your repetitive argument that only sg to blame. If you read Windy’s posts carefully, he used the words ‘lessons learnt’ many times. In any case, those are his words, not mine. You should have addressed those to him not me. But now no need, he oready said he won’t reply since u only resort to bad language when trapped by calm logic (to quote him)
Lesson 2, beware and be prepared for those intentions of the other party, because they no longer play by established rules, regulations and agreements, but guanxi and all.
Lesson 3, again, be aware, and even prepared for others NOT to play by the rules when doing business in the mainland.
Lesson 4, must consider the complexities and real intentions of the Suzhou authorities, and more importantly the flawed practices of the Chinese authorities.
You can actually say it in one sentence, Suzhou project did work out as planned because the chinese din play by the rules (established, rule of law....) and the real intentions of the chinese authorities were not clear and they had flawed practices. What about us, well we were inexperienced so we didn't know they din play by the rules and the flawed practices.......If these the only lessons sg government learned from Suzhou, good luck, better not invest in china anymore!!!
I oso said in my previous post since SIP incident in 1994, the govt has learnt from the SIP mishap. As for what other lessons the govt learnt, thatÂ’s for you and I to guess, there must be many moreÂ…Â…but as we knowÂ…...investments in china are plenty these days.The excerpts from newsweek simply said that both parties are to be blamed but china should take bigger blame. What else?
Those articles are from ASIAWEEK NOT newsweek lah. Wah lau….if u want to know ‘what else’….u go search and read up lor….otherwise be content with the excerpts. The point is that the articles recognized blame cannot be put on just one party alone…..u insist it’s sg’s arrogance and sg’s fault..nothing said about china.The south china morning posts was careful to say that it was To the Singaporeans, the Suzhou city government was reneging on the fundamental promise...." "Singaporeans tended to be more straight-talking and business-friendly, but were often at a loss in dealing with the red tape and developing the guanxi necessary to oil the engines of business. " is it just inexperienced?
Again, windyÂ’s post made it clear itÂ’s an EXCERPT and what he posted is just HALF of the article. I looked up the url he provided and saw that what he cut/paste in this thread is just the first page. If u read the ENTIRE article, u will discover that:
The SCMP was fair as they also commented on the Chinese "For their part, the Chinese tended to be highly bureaucratic and slow to respond to suggestions. "
Its final remark was more interesting "These were differences of working styles and methods and could have been settled with more patience and sincerity on both sides". no, it was the chinese who din play by the rules......
(1)president jiang zemin recognized the problems in suzhou caused by the local officials and made it clear to suzhou authorities that SIP be given highest priority
(2)the suzhou mayor zhang xinsheng was FIRED as a result and replaced by new mayor chen deming because of what happened
(3)central authorities in china acknowledged that suzhou was too far away, and it had trouble controlling local authorities there.
I think these actions speak volumes where acknowledgement of problems are concernedÂ….the suzhou authorities were the main troublemakers. That is not to say sg govt blameless lah, but just did not carry as much blame. Read the entire article carefully yourself lor!!If all singaporean can say about Suzhou project is ONLY that China din play by the rules, they had other intentions and flawed practices......... tell me if this is lessons learned or an expression of arrogance??
ThatÂ’s not what the Sg govt said..in the articles, they remained quite diplomatic
windy said both parties were at fault but china has to take the bigger responsiblity. The foreign media also said the same things.
It is YOU who made up the sentence “If all singaporean can say about Suzhou project is ONLY that China din play by the rules, they had other intentions and flawed practices”. Why u keep attempting to mislead people??
But if you are genuinely confused, read the entire articles from asiaweek, scmp and windyÂ’s posts carefully, then maybe you wont be so confused? Aiyo! Read carefully and remember what you read leh!By the way, talking about "foreign media and expert economic writers and analysts" whom you know are "people who monitor such things for a living say oso......" I don think I am more expert than the business writers, but at most I don buy their magazine if I don agree with them. But you know, if others don agree with them, their circulations can be limited you know. You know they need circulations to pay salary one leh. Lucky you, or windyday only quote those parts that are "correct", otherwise they will kenna leh. belly xiong one, you know, no salary.
Har!?! What u talking about?? Magazine circulation restrictions?? I have heard of those circulation bans but what has this got to do with suzhou here??? DonÂ’t change subject!Now the more interesting issue,
Wah lauÂ…..how is your life experience relevant to lky!? U tell me your life story for wat!?!? DonÂ’t change subject ok! And of course I am as real as you lahÂ….u think bot writing this post meh? I never thought you are a bot replying to me!
'lky built this nation from scratch', because the British built only the scratch, but lucky he got uncle Goh KS, Toh CC, Rajarathnam...and many others to help him loh. I didn't because I was not even born yet,
'He led a country from poverty to prosperity', otherwise u think ppl will vote him again. I didn't lead a country because I haven't built it yet, I am still studying, next time when I grow up I will do my part, my father told me one.
'He battled real issues and real people in real life', yes, i think sometimes I play too much computer dealing with virtual ppl in virtual life. by the way, is windyday and silverkris real ppl?
U should have said all this to windy instead of using insults. He has been clear and calm in his replies, but he wont bother replying to you anyway.
I oso very busy with other posts heheheÂ…no time to get bogged down by your problem with him. My conclusion: while you are free to criticize sg side, do not forget there are two sides to the storyÂ… use reason, not insults.
Come to think of it, I hope you are not deliberately twisting words, and mixing things up here so that you can avoid straight answers, and responding to his points. -
Don't waste your time pointing out the obvious SilverKris. Those who prefer to remain dim, will do so. More productive to spend the time on your schoolwork.
-
To silverkris,
I gave it to this windyday because he came in with his gun on hips and started shooting with "Your perspective of global events ..... is indeed "shockingly" limited! (or maybe you just dont read world news). " This is his bloody FIRST sentence after the opening sentence! He can disagree with my reply to Heartlander but his remark is that ".....your simplistic diagnosis of all ills..... is naive. " He concluded his first post by accusing the writer of " ......cooking up another storm to portray the govt in a bad light, ......." and his first post to me oredi asked me to be "... more level-headed...." You said this guy is calm and diplomatic? you must be living in a storm day in day out.
Since you mentioned I should reply to him direct, then I shall not bother anymore. Just one point to add, the words "lessons learned" were used many times, but it is the same thing repeated many times, and I take words like "don play by the rules, real intention, flawed business practice..."as a judgement/remarks/insults or whatever on the other party, not lessons learned.
Anyway, business continue in China, i only want to see if there are lessons I can learn on our part when overseas problem involving singaporean. I don change subject, no need twist words cause china don need me to speak for them. Foreigners comments on china plenty, but their interest in china is different and China is changing everyday!! It is easy to criticise others, but to acknowledge our problem is difficult, especially it involves lau l....
But at least some other forumites voiced something for me to think about "... competition which they never faced at home;.. due to their arrogance; in the SIP project, our officials had actually snubbed the PRC local govt.
; the way they deal with people(locals)(can see that in many other places, like vietnam... 
); ....most of us seem to think that as long as we do our part well nothing would go wrong, without considering what is going on on the other side." To these honest opinions/observations, I salute the forumites.
You can now go ask windyday to buy you a lunch for defending and speaking for him. Have a good weekend and a good meal (if you can get it).
Cheers!!!!