Blowin' In The Wind

Competition Singapore-style

Competition? What competition can possibly be there between Singapore's biggest telcos?

Both SingTel and MediaCorp are owned by Temasek Holdings, the Singapore sovereign wealth fund headed by the prime minister's wife, Ho Ching.

The only difference is Temasek is the sole owner of MediaCorp and the majority shareholder of SingTel, owning 56 percent of the shares, the rest being held by the public.

In any case, Temasek stands to gain when both MediaCorp and SingTel do well.

But someone has to pay for it.

And it will be the football lovers of Singapore.

From next year they will have to subscribe to both StarHub, the cable TV operator owned by MediaCorp, and SingTel's new pay TV service, mio TV.

SingTel has won the right to telecast Champions League and UEFA Cup matches from 2009 to 2012 while StarHub will continue to show the English Premier League matches.

And who gains?

Temasek, of course.

And what did the watchdog Media Development Authority say when the football lovers complained about the additional costs?

It can't stifle competition.

But both MediaCorp and SingTel have the same owners!

But that's competition Singapore-style where SingTel and MediaCorp compete fiercely in the telephony market.

SingTel is one of Asia's biggest telcos, owning Optus (Australia) and stakes in Bharti Telecom Group (India), APT Satellite (Hong Kong), Advanced Info Service (Thailand), Globe Telecom (Philippines), Pacific Bangladesh Telecom (Bangladesh), PT Telekommunikesi Sellular (Indonesia), Warid Telecom (Pakistan).

But it's a mystery how SingTel's mioTV, with fewer than 30,000 subscribers, managed to outbid StarHub, with 600,000 subscribers, for the rights to telecast the Champions League.

It's a victory for SingTel which finally has a popular programme to expand its subscriber base.

But it may be no great loss for StarHub which still has the English Premier League and a zillion other popular shows.

Football lovers could win too if they drop one service or don't sign up for the other. That should bring subscription charges down.

Not that it is likely to happen.

Football is about the only thing on which Singaporeans express their passions freely. Even newspaper sales and the gaming industry could be affected if Singaporeans don't follow the game. Football betting is part of the business of Singapore Pools, the government-owned lottery operator.

Technorati Tags: temasek holdings,mediacorp,singtel,starhub

Singapore: Shades of Ulysses and Lotos-Eaters

Thinking of Singapore always reminds me of two poems by Tennyson:

The Lotos-Eaters, particularly the third and fourth lines:

In the afternoon they came unto a land
In which it seemed always afternoon.

And Ulysses, especially the last line:

To strive, to seek, to find and not to yield.

The placidity of the The Lotos-Eaters is the polar opposite of the restlessness of Ulysses.

But there is a bit of both in Singapore. On the surface, it is quiet and peaceful -- which is what I love about Singapore -- but the leadership is constantly striving like Ulysses, seeking new ideas, finding new ways to make Singapore better and indispensable to the global economy.

And, of course, the leadership never yields. Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew has been in office ever since independence more than 40 years ago. His son, Lee Hsien Loong, is now prime minister after entering politics at the age of 32 in 1984. Other senior figures like Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong have also been around for a long time.

They have been supremely effective: Singapore enjoys one of the highest standards of living in Asia, attracting people from all over the world.

No wonder Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew says Singaporeans must not become complacent.

But if people have become complacent, it is not without reason.

Look at the local media, always trumpeting Singapore is best in this or that.

They are right.

Education, law and order, government, economy, Singapore scores high marks in all these areas in any international ranking.

But what is missing in Singapore becomes evident when one visits the great cities of Europe and America.

I love Singapore. It is a great place to live in. But it is too young, too small, to match the culture and heritage of those great cities.

And, frankly, it is a top-down, trickle-down society where everybody sings from the same hymnbook led by the government leaders.

Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew warned against complacency, that is the big news today, and a million blogs will be bloviating on it like I am doing now.

That is the difference with other great cities.

 

Technorati Tags: lee kuan yew,tennyson,media

Singapore's PM Lee too old at 56?

Is Singapore's Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong past his peak? Looking for young talent to fill the party ranks, he says:

"If you come in at 30, you can spend five, 10 years before you become a minister, and it's okay because you're still in your 40s, still vigorous. If you're coming in at 45 and take 10 years to become a minister, you're 55 already."

The implication is you are no longer as vigorous at that age. He should know. He is 56.

But his father, Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew, is in fine form, approaching his 85th birthday.

I am sure Prime Minister Lee will have the same energy as he leads Singapore into the next decade. He is looking even further ahead. Thinking about the future and the need to find a successor, he told the Straits Times:

"If I start looking for people now and field them in the next election, two elections after that will be 13 years from now. I'm 56, plus 13, it's 69. That is very late. So there's no time to be lost.

"We must look for people in their 30s or early 40s now, to prepare for that situation 12, 13 years down the road."

Technorati Tags: lee hsien loong

Pity the rich

Hath not the rich eyes? Hath not the rich hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions; fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, heal'd by the same means, warm'd and cool'd by the same winter and summer, as the poor are? If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die?

With apologies to Shakespeare and The Merchant of Venice, I can only tweak Shylock's famous words in my -- solidarity I am in no position to show -- sympathy for the rich people in Singapore. They have been harder hit by inflation than the poor, say the government statisticians in the Department of Statistics. One might wonder how the rich can be affected more than the poor. But look at their expenses, say the statisticians: mounting fuel bills, more expensive holiday travel, rising house costs.

Yes, indeed, somebody has to think of the rich too. Especially in these days of globalisation when the rich and highly qualified can vote with their feet. They only have to book their flights to emigrate wherever they please. As for the poor, where will they go except as immigrant workers?

Just for the record, here's the report which appeared in the freesheet Today and the Department of Statistics' own press release.

Singapore and UN convention against torture

President Bush this month vetoed a bill that would have barred CIA agents from using harsh interrogation techniques such as waterboarding -- or simulated drowning -- on suspected terrorists. This made news around the world including Singapore. But did the Singapore media report that Singapore, unlike the USA, is yet to sign the Convention Against Torture?

I learnt this by chance while reading The Economist whose China correspondent was the only foreign journalist in Lhasa with official permission when riots broke out in the Tibetan capital two days ago. On the sidebar of the correspondent's report was a blogroll which said "Human Rights offers a series of articles on Tibet". The link led me to the Human Rights Watch's China page which linked to articles about migrant construction workers in Beijing. Foreign construction workers are often in the news in booming city states such as Dubai and Singapore. So I searched the Human Rights Watch website for articles on Dubai and Singapore. That's how I came across the Human Rights Watch World Report 2008 entry on Singapore, which summed up last year's events in Singapore. The last paragraph said:

Singapore has not ratified important international human rights instruments, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Convention on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and the Convention Against Torture.

I am not posting this information here as a criticism of Singapore or the Singapore media. I love Singapore. I appreciate its order and stability. That feeling's no doubt shared by the vast majority of the people; otherwise the ruling People's Action Party would not have 82 of the 84 elected members of parliament. Only two belong to the opposition.

I am posting this just to point out how anyone on the Internet can get information that is not easily available elsewhere. Singapore encourages people to freely surf the Internet: unlike other Asian countries, it has never restricted access to YouTube, Blogspot or any popular website. If Singapore is yet to sign some international convention, it must have legitimate reasons. The Singapore government tries to educate the people when it signs an international agreement. I recall the coverage given when Singapore ratified the Kyoto Protocol. People were told the implications of the treaty and how they could help reduce emission of greenhouse gases by cutting back on energy consumption.

As for the Convention Against Torture, 145 countries have become parties to the agreement by October 2007 including Indonesia, Thailand, Timor-Leste and the Philippines. Among those holding out are Malaysia, Brunei, Vietnam, Laos, Myanmar, Iraq, Pakistan and the United Arab Emirates.

Singapore opposition leader arrested

Singapore opposition leader Chee Soon Juan and several others were arrested today for holding a rally without a permit outside Parliament House to protest against the rising cost of living, report AFP and Reuters.

The protesters were bundled into police vans after plainclothes officers arrested them, the reports said. AFP said 10 people were arrested including Chee's sister while Reuters said:

The police could not immediately confirm how many people were arrested or what they were charged with.

I saw the AFP report on MSN News but it is also there on the Straits Times website though not yet on Channel NewsAsia. The International Herald Tribune has also picked up the report from the Associated Press.

AFP said:

Chee is the leader of the Singapore Democratic Party, one of a handful of opposition parties in the city-state, which has been ruled by the People's Action Party since 1959.

About 18 protesters, including children, had earlier gathered outside parliament where they symbolically laid groceries on a sidewalk.

They wore red T-shirts with the words "We cannot take it anymore" while others carried placards denouncing rising prices.

The 10 were arrested after ignoring police calls to disperse and lay down their placards, the witnesses said.

Singapore, scarred by racial riots in the 1960s, has strict laws against public assembly, which require a police permit for a gathering of five or more people.

Reuters  has a picture of the protesters in red T-shirts and holding placards. The actual words on the T-shirts are "Tak Boleh Tahah" (Malay for "we cannot take it anymore"). Reuters adds:

Singapore fund's global investments

The two airports of Rome -- Fiumcino and Roma Ciampino -- won't be the first in which the Government of Singapore Investment Corporation (GIC) will have an interest. Its subsidiary, GIC Special Investments (GICSI), already has a stake in British Airport Authority (BAA), the world's largest airport operator with seven airports in the UK, including Heathrow, Gatwick and Stanstead.

GICSI was part of the consortium which acquired BAA in May 2006. And it is GICSI that is spreading its wings to Rome.

GICSI is investing about 1 billion euros ( $1.53 billion) in fashion house Benetton's holding company, Sintonia SA, which has a 95.7 percent stake in Rome airport operator Aeroporti di Roma through a holding company called Gemina. Sintonia also controls Italian highway operator Atlantia and has a stake in Telco, the holding that controls Italy's largest telecom operator, Telecom Italia.

But the Singapore sovereign wealth fund won't have a say in the United Colors of Benetton. The Benetton Group clothing company is controlled by the Benetton family through the separate Edizione Holding.

And I thought the Benettons were just a fashion house! They are a conglomerate. And so is the Singapore fund manager.

GIC board of directors (1-7) Chairman: Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew, Deputy Chairman: Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, Deputy Chairman and Executive Director: Former deputy prime minister Tony Tan, Directors: Minister for Trade and Industry Lim Hng Kiang, Minister for Finance and Education Tharman Shanmugratnam, Minister for Transport and Second Minister for Foreign Affairs Raymond Lim, Former minister for finance and GIC Real Estate Chairman Richard Hu. (Photos GIC)

GIC keeps popping up in the news for various deals. But it has three subsidiaries: GICSI; GIC Asset Management which invests in equities in 40 countries outside Singapore, manages bond investments and deals in foreign exchange; and GIC Real Estate, one of the world's top 10 real estate investment firms.

Other GICSI investments include:

• Infrastructure Development Finance Company (IDFC)
  A wholesale bank set up by the Indian government to provide infrastructure financing. By August 2006, it has reached a market capitalisation of about $1.5 billion.
• China International Capital Corporation (CICC)
  The leading Chinese investment bank.
• Li Ning
  The largest Chinese sports apparel and footwear company.
• Associated British Ports Holdings (ABP)
  The largest port operator in the UK.

Singapore billion for Benettons

Singapore is taking a stake in the Benettons, but not in the fashion business. The Government of Singapore Investment Corporation (GIC) is investing about 1 billion euros ($1.53 billion) in the Italian family's holding company, Sintonia SA. The fashion business is part of the family's other holding company, Edizione Holding.

Sintonia is focused on infrastructure, not hemlines, holding stakes in Italian highway operator Atlantia  and Italy's largest telecom operator Telecom Italia through holding company Telco. Sintonia also owns a 95.7 percent stake in Rome airport operator Aeroporti di Roma through a holding company called Gemina, reports CNN Money. So GIC gets a share of a telco too like the other Singapore sovereign fund, Temasek Holdings, which has SingTel -- which, in its turn, has stakes in foreign telecoms such as Optus in Australia, Bharti Group in India, Globe Telecom in the Philippines, Pacific Bangladesh Telecom and Telkomsel in Indonesia.

GIC is buying a 14.3 percent stake in Sintonia, reported Reuters quoting Sintonia. GIC will be given one or two board representatives, said the Italian daily, La Stampa.

GIC is the first of a small number of additional partners the Benettons are seeking as part of a global expansion of their operations, reports the Financial Times. The Benettons have already been joined by Goldman Sachs and Mediobanca, the Italian investment bank, it added.

Singapore's lazy media

There's no other word for it. Singapore media are so used to reporting news from trusted sources -- government ministers, senior civil servants, corporate big shots and respected analysts -- that they don't always bother to check their facts. Today, for example, I saw the same mistake in The Straits Times and the Channel NewsAsia website.

Indians make up the third biggest group of billionaires in the world, reported The Straits Times and Channel NewsAsia. They got it wrong.

Indians make up the fourth biggest group with 53 billionaires: the Germans are third with 59. The Americans are the biggest group with 469 billionaires and the Russians second with 87.

The Singapore newspaper and the local news channel website could have avoided the mistake if they had actually checked the report they were quoting: the annual Forbes list of billionaires.

What makes it even more funny is that Channel NewsAsia did publish Forbes' own report! And the Forbes report makes it quite clear that the Germans make up the third biggest group of billionaires. It says:

Sixteen years after the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia, with 87 billionaires, is the new No. 2 country behind the US, easily overtaking Germany, with 59 billionaires, which held the honor for six years.

But Channel NewsAsia also published an AFP report, which said Indians made up the third biggest group of billionaires, and no one bothered to cross-check.

The Straits Times stitched the AFP report together with one from Reuters. 

No wonder the Straits Times and Channel NewsAsia reports started in similar fashion:

The number of billionaires in Asia jumped more than 30 percent from last year, with tycoons from India and China leading the charge, according to Forbes magazine's annual billionaires list.  (Channel NewsAsia)

The number of Asians ranked among the world's super-rich has leapt by almost a third since last year, according to Forbes magazine's annual list of billionaires.

Chinese and Indian tycoons are leading the charge, with Indian steel giant Lakshmi Mittal's US$45 billion (S$62 billion) making him the fourth richest man in the world. (The Straits Times)

Channel NewsAsia reported:

"India placed third in the world for the number of billionaires, trailing the United States, which easily led the rankings with 469 billionaires up from 415 last year, and Russia with 87," reported Channel NewsAsia.

The Straits Times reported:

"Overall. India had the third-highest (why the hyphen? I would like to know) number of billionaires in the world, trailing the United States' 469 -- up from 415 last year -- and Russia's 87," reported The Straits Times.

• But China has more billionaires than India, both pointed out, if Hong Kong isn't counted as a separate territory. Even their language was similar.

Same words

Channel NewsAsia reported:

Asians accounted for 211 people on the list, up from 160 last year, with India counting 53, up from 36 in 2007, and China, which had just 20 billionaires last year, now boasting 42.

Hong Kong saw five more entrepreneurs make the grade, giving it a total of 26 and  meaning that China and Hong Kong, which has a special administrative status under Beijing, lead the Asian list if grouped together.

The Straits Times reported: 

Asians accounted for 211 people on the list, up from 160 last year. India provided 53 of those names, up from 36, while China, which had just 20 billionaires last year, now boasts 42.

Hong Kong saw five more make the grade, giving it a total of 26 and meaning that China and its special administrative territory lead the Asian list if grouped together.

See how similar the language is!

I suspect it was AFP which wrongly reported that India had the third highest number of billionaires.

But I am surprised no one bothered to cross-check. Forbes' original report can be read online for free by anyone. It's not like The Straits Times' (ahem) "Premium News", which can be read only by paying subscribers.

I agree it's not a major mistake. But it shows a lack of curiosity. And journalists are expected to be curious. But, then again, curiosity killed the cat.

Singaporean billionaires

The five Singaporean billionaires on the Forbes list are

• Ng Teng Fong, with $7 billion, ranked 132nd
• Wee Cho Yaw, with $2.9 billion, ranked 396th
• Zhong Sheng Jian, with $2.3 billion, ranked 524th
• Kuok Khoon Hong, with $ 1.3 billion, ranked 897th
• Peter Lim, with $1 billion, ranked 1062nd.

Forbes lists 1,125 billionaires in the world. For Singaporean billionaires, check this page on Forbes.

Singapore is the country of residence for eight billionaires, according to Forbes. They include the five Singaporeans and:

• Indonesian Sukanto Tanoto, worth $3.8 billion, and ranked 284th
• Fellow Indonesian Martua Sitorus, with $1.9 billion, ranked 652nd
• American Robert Friedland with $1.4 billion ranked 843rd

See this page on Forbes. There are eight Malaysian billionaires on the Forbes list. They are:

• Robert Kuok worth $9 billion and ranked 97th (Living in Hong Kong)
• Ananda Krishnan worth $7.2 billion and ranked 131st
• Lee Shin Cheng worth $5.7billion and ranked 173rd
• Teh Hong Piow worth $3.3 billion and ranked 334th
• Quek Leng Chan worth $2.3 billion and ranked 524th
• Yeoh Tiong Lay worth $2.1 billion and ranked 573rd
• Syed Mokhtar AlBukhary worth $2 billion and ranked 605th
• Tiong Hiew King worth $ 1.1 billion and ranked 1014th

Singapore best, but...

Singapore is the best city in the world for Asian expats to live in, report Channel NewsAsia and The Straits Times quoting an international survey, but they don't mention the bad news about themselves. Singapore still lags behind when it comes to the media. Maybe that's not news. But this is what the Associated Press report in the International Herald Tribune said:

Quane noted, however, that Hong Kong scored better than Singapore in one respect: the media.

"In news and media, we regard Hong Kong as much more free and fair than in Singapore," he said.

Lee Quane is the general manager of the human resource consultancy, ECA International, which carried out the survey. Quane is based in Hong Kong, which tied with Tokyo in 15th place.

"People feel safer in Hong Kong than they have in recent years," he said. "But looking at the main reason why Hong Kong still lags behind Singapore is the issue of air pollution."

The report on the Straits Times website is credited to Reuters and AP, but it leaves out the bit about the media. Nor is it mentioned by Channel NewsAsia.

Asian expatriates have ranked Singapore as the best place to live in the world for its safe and clean environment, while Europeans chose Copenhagen, reported The Straits Times. It added the 10 best locations for Asian expats, according to the survey, were:

1) Singapore - Singapore
2) Australia - Sydney
3) Japan - Kobe
4) Australia - Melbourne
5) Denmark - Copenhagen
6) Australia - Canberra
7) Canada - Vancouver
8) Japan - Yokohama
9) New Zealand - Wellington
10) Ireland - Dublin

I agree, Singapore is a great place to  live in. And the Internet connections work 99.9 percent of the time, so you can usually catch up on what the local media were too shy to report.

Singapore's Delphic Oracle

Singapore's Home Affairs Minister Wong Kan Seng was as enigmatic as the Delphic Oracle. The only difference was he was not prophesying the future but shedding light on the past.

An Islamic militant escaped from detention yesterday. Mas Selamat Kastari, we learnt from the newspapers today, was a leader of the dreaded Jemaah Islamiah, the Southeast Asian version of Al Qaeda, who escaped from Singapore after plots to attack Changi airport, the US embassy, and other targets were foiled seven years ago. Arrested in Indonesia two years ago, he was sent back to Singapore and kept under detention until he managed to escape yesterday.

"Massive manhunt", said The Straits Times headline over a facial shot of the goateed terrorist and a report by four reporters who had clearly burnt their shoe leather chatting up anybody living in the neighbourhood who was willing to speak -- but that apparently did not include the guardians of law and order the terrorist managed to slip past.

There was not a word about how he escaped. Only this:

Mas Selamat, 47, who took over as head of the Jemaah Islamiah (JI) terror network  here in 1999, fled the Internal Security Department's Whitley Road detention centre at 4.05pm yesterday.

The minister finally explained today:

Mas Selamat was being taken to the toilet before a meeting at the Family Visit Room when he escaped. (I am quoting from the Channel NewsAsia website. And here's the Straits Times version.)

But how did he escape? Did he suddenly run away, overpower the guards?

Sshh, we mustn't speculate! That's what the minister said. He "apologised for the incident" in parliament and said:

"This should never have happened. I am sorry that it has. An independent investigation is underway and we should not speculate now as to what and how it happened. Security at the centre has been stepped up."

Meanwhile, the terrorist is still "at large".

The minister's explanation raised more questions than answers. He must have done so for security reasons, but he was thereby emulating the Delphic Oracle.

Technorati Tags: jemaah islamiah,terrorist

An American newsman who admires Singapore

The American journalist Tom Plate, whose column appears in The Straits Times, admires Singapore. In his book, Confessions of an American Media Man, he writes:

Sure, Singapore had its problems -- ethnic tension, excessive political uprightness, constant worries about unemployment. But they've done one heck of a job. The city state has one of the highest per capita incomes in the world. The environment is so clean that it is a Western environmentalist's paradise. There is no littering...  The public education system consistently rates as one of the best in the world. The Singapore cabinet invariably fields a team whose collective IQ is at least equal to that of its neighbours' cabinets combined; its civil servants are paid well and its appointment process is, by and large merit-driven; and its much-maligned, if always pro-government, news media... serves all its ethnicities pretty well by not sensationalising frictions and counts one world-class daily newspaper, The Straits Times, among its holdings.   

That's the only mention of The Straits Times, which sometime ago published this section of the book where Plate also writes about his interview with Lee Kuan Yew. When asked what was Singapore's biggest problem after independence in the 1960s, he writes,

Remarkable Singapore

I wrote yesterday that the 1.8 billion Singapore dollars ($1.27 billion) in benefits that Singaporeans will be getting in a budget surplus sharing package is less than one-fifth the amount Singapore is investing in Citigroup. I was having a little fun, knowing the local newspapers would never publish such comparisons. They highlight the benefits instead. But I don't think what the government is doing for Singapore can be measured  in dollars and cents only. Let's not forget the intangibles -- the quality of life in Singapore.

People may have greater social security in the West. But we enjoy peace and stability, an excellent public transport network, a good education system and great amenities. Home ownership is as high as 93 percent and unemployment fell to as low as 1.6 percent in December, according to the Department of Statistics. These are remarkable figures.

Of course, there's a huge income gap: the per capita income from work for the top 10 percent of the employed households last year was 7,940 Singapore dollars -- more than twice as much for the next 10 percent (3,460 Singapore dollars) and more than 25 times times as much as for the poorest 10 percent (310 Singapore dollars).

Among Singapore's major trading partners, only Hong Kong has a wider income gap. Singapore's Gini coefficient -- a measure of income inequality -- was 0.46 last year, according to the government. The corresponding figures for

• Hong Kong 0.523 (survey year 2001)
• Malaysia 0.461 (2002)
• Thailand 0.420 (2002)
• Indonesia 0.363 (2005)
• China 0.469(2004)
• Philippines 0.445 (2003)
• India 0.368 (2004)
• Japan 0.381 (2002)
• South Korea 0.351 (2006)
• Australia 0.352 (1994 )
• New Zealand 0.362 (1997)
• UK 0.340 (2005)
• US 0.450 (2007)

But the government is trying to address this problem. One reason the income tax for top earners was not reduced from 20 percent could be a desire to narrow the gap.

Citigroup 5, Singaporeans 1

Citigroup 5, Singaporeans 1.

That would be the scoreline if this were a game of soccer.

Singaporeans will be getting 1.8 billion Singapore dollars ($1.27 billion)in education grants, Medisave top-ups, income tax rebates and other benefits under a budget surplus sharing package

Citigroup is getting more than five times as much from the Government of Singapore Investment Corporation (GIC), which has agreed to invest $6.9 billion for a 4 percent stake in the troubled banking giant.

Singapore has a budget surplus of 6.4 billion Singapore dollars. Not that the budget has anything to do with the Citigroup deal. GIC is a private company managing Singapore's foreign reserves. It has also decided to invest 11 billion Swiss francs ($10 billion) in UBS and become the Swiss bank's biggest shareholder with a 9 percent stake. UBS announced yesterday it had lost $18 billion in the US subprime mortgage crisis.

The Finance Ministry, which prepares the budget, has its own sovereign fund, Temasek Holdings. Temasek has decided to invest $4.4 billion and take a 9.9 percent stake in the ailing Wall Street firm, Merrill Lynch.

Technorati Tags: budget,citigroup

Price hike follows tax hike

Singapore is facing its steepest price rises in 27 years -- partly due to government policy. The cost of living has gone up partly because of the sales tax hike last year, Finance Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam said today while presenting this year's budget.

But the main reason for inflation is high prices of food and oil due to rising global demand, he said, adding that "inflation is higher today than we have been used to for many years".

The consumer price index, which averaged 2 percent last year, hit 4.4 percent in December and is expected to hit 4.5 percent to 5.5 percent this year -- Singapore's highest inflation rate since 1981, according to Channel NewsAsia. Prices rose after the Goods and Services Tax (GST) was raised from 5 percent to 7 percent in July last year.

Shanmugratnam said in his budget speech:

The relatively high ‘headline’ consumer price index (CPI) numbers that we are now seeing, like in December, are partly due to the GST increase in July last year. The CPI inflation figure continues to show the impact of the GST change, because it is comparing prices this month with prices 12 months ago, that is, before the GST increase in July 2007. But if we compare prices today with prices say in September last year, there has been little further increase due to the GST change. The GST change has caused only a one-off increase in prices, and not continuing price increases.

He stressed:

Singaporeans have not been materially affected by the GST increase, because the government has provided the majority of citizens with substantial offsets, which more than make up for the increased spending on GST by most families. Lower-income families are in fact receiving offsets which are several times larger than their higher GST payments.

Rising property prices have also contributed to inflation, he added.

(The) rising values of homes... will contribute significantly to inflation this year. However, here too, most Singaporeans are not materially affected, as 95 percent of citizens own their own homes and do not pay rentals.

Singapore's average income puzzle

"Singaporeans' household incomes in 2007 highest in a decade but income gap between high and low income groups widens," reports The Straits Times. It adds:

Data published on Wednesday by the Department of Statistics showed that the average household income from work rose to $6,280*, from $5,730 the previous year.

But it doesn't say the median household income from work was less: $4,870 or more a month for the employed households.

(Please note all figures in Singapore dollars. One US dollar is worth about 1.5 Singapore dollars.)

Actually, the per capita income of 90 percent of the households is less than the average monthly household income, going by the department's own report.

That's not mentioned by The Straits Times or Channel NewsAsia, which also reports only the average monthly income.

But you will find the median household income in the Key Household Trends 2007 report which you can download from the Department of Statistics website.

The median income tends to be lower than the average income. In 2005, according to the department, average household income from work was $5,400 while median household income from work was $3,830.

The median income is considered by many statisticians to be a better indicator than the average income, says Wikipedia.

Why?

Because if nine people earn $1,000 each and another person earns $11,000, their average income will be $2,000!

Wikipedia explains the difference between average and median income, quoting the US Census Bureau:

Median income is the amount which divides the income distribution into two equal groups, half having income above that amount, and half having income below that amount. Mean income (average) is the amount obtained by dividing the total aggregate income of a group by the number of units in that group.

Look at the Department of Statistics' report and you will see the average household income was pushed up by the high-income group.

The per capita household monthly income from work for the top 10 percent of the employed households is $7,940 and for the next 10 percent, $3,460. In other words, the per capita income of 90 percent of the households is less than Singapore's average household income.

Mind the (income) gap

"PM: Let's tackle cost fears together", reports The Straits Times. It was not the most carefully thought out headline. True, it was quoting Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong who said:

"We can overcome this problem by working together. People making adjustments, the Government doing its part. We must stay together even during difficult periods."

He promised help to the needy. No doubt the prime minister will deliver on his promise: it is farsighted government policies that have made Singapore prosperous.

But the fact is ministers and civil servants just had a pay rise which increased the prime minister's annual salary to 3.76 million Singapore dollars ($2.6 million) -- six times that of President Bush -- while the median household income from work was 3,830 Singapore dollars a month in 2005, the most recent official figures from Statistics Singapore.

Can anyone imagine people earning five- or six-figure monthly incomes having to practise the same kind of economy or leading the same lifestyle as those earning less than 4,000 Singapore dollars a month?

The Straits Times headline should have just said, "PM: Let's tackle cost fears".

See how Channel NewsAsia reported the story: "PM Lee says govt will help mitigate rising costs of food", says the headline. Not a word about togetherness.

What a US recession means for Singapore

The Economist as usual has figures to show how Singapore could be hit by a US recession. It says:

Some Asian economies are more vulnerable than others: Singapore, Hong Kong and Malaysia have exports to America equivalent to 20 percent  or more of their GDPs, compared with only 8 percent in China and 2 percent in India. There are already some ominous signs. Singapore’s exports to America are down by 11 percent over the past year, while Malaysia’s fell by 16 percent. Exports to other emerging economies and to the European Union surged, so total exports still grew by 6 percent in both economies. But that was much slower than at the start of the year, and the worry now is that demand from Europe has started to flag.

But it says there is

"reason to be optimistic that domestic demand (consumer spending and investment) is likely to remain strong and governments have more flexibility... Take Malaysia: exports to America plunged, yet its GDP growth quickened from 5.7 percent at the end of 2006 to 6.7 percent in the third quarter of last year."

Singapore has a tradition of spending on infrastructure to help the economy through hard times. But consumer spending will have to go up, too, to offset any drop in exports. Spending more will not be easy for everyone. A Reuters story last November noted:

Two years of blistering economic growth and a government policy of attracting wealthy expatriates have created a new class of super-rich, while a string of price increases for everything from bread to bus fares have made life harder for the poor...

The proportion of Singapore residents earning less than S$1,000 ($690) a month rose to 18 percent last year, from 16 percent in 2002, central bank data released late last month show.

At the same time, the proportion of those earning S$8,000 and above rose from 4.7 percent to 6 percent in the same period...

Despite sporting a first-world GDP per capita of $29,000 -- second only to Japan in Asia -- Singapore has an income inequality profile more in line with third-world countries.

Singapore's Gini coefficient, a measure of income inequality, has worsened from 42.5 in 1998 to 47.2 in 2006, and is now in league with the Philippines (46.1) and Guatemala (48.3), and worse than China (44.7), data from Singapore's Household Survey and the World Bank show.

Other wealthy Asian nations such as Japan, Korea and Taiwan have more European-style Ginis of 24.9, 31.6 and 32.6.

Technorati Tags: gini coefficient,income

Singapore looks to India and China

Singapore will have to depend on India and China if the US is hit by a recession, says Singapore's Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew. But that's a fact downplayed by Singapore's main newspaper, The Straits Times. Why? Usually it highlights anything he says. But this time it has been very selective.

Here is what Lee Kuan Yew said, according to Channel News Asia:

"I do not believe the Chinese economy is immune to a US slowdown, nor is the Indian economy. But I believe they are now much less... influenced by US recession because they’ve got enough going in their own internal economy. They can increase investments in infrastructure; they can increase consumption; they can increase all their projects and keep the economy buoyant," he said.

Wrapping up his five-day visit to Saudi Arabia, Mr Lee said if China can maintain economic growth at around eight to nine per cent a year, then it could weather the economic storm well.

How well Singapore does, he said, will depend on how other economies fare, though he feels Singapore should be able to ride on the healthy performance of China and India.

Now look at what The Straits Times reported: 

He said while the Chinese and Indian economies were not immune to a US slowdown, he believed they were much less influenced by a US recession because they have got enough going in their internal economies.
"They can increase investments in infrastructure, they can increase consumption, they can increase all their projects and keep the economy buoyant. And,if they can keep their economy up, say,instead of making 11, 12 percent, they make 8,9 percent, then we will not go down so much. But that may take one, two years before we see the results."

That was all it said: If the Chinese and Indian economies remain strong, "then we will not go down so much".

Channel NewsAsia was far more explicit. It underlined how much depends on China and India. This is how it started the story:

Singapore’s Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew said he is not certain what impact a possible US recession will have on Singapore.

Although it is not clear whether financial markets will take up to two years to recover from the ordeal, Mr Lee said he feels that China and India may provide some cushion for the slowdown in the US.

And then it added: "he feels Singapore should be able to ride on the healthy performance of China and India".

The Straits Times instead led with his son, Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew's optimistic assessment that Singapore should be able to weather the storm. That's fine.

But it should not have downplayed what Lee Kuan Yew said. It glossed over Singapore's relationship with not only India and China but with the global economy as a whole.

Lee Kuan Yew said:

"Our total trade is 300 per cent of our GDP (gross domestic product). So when the external trade goes down, you tell me how we buffer ourselves. But the external trade may not go down so dramatically because of India and China." (Channel NewsAsia)

That's not mentioned in The Straits Times.

If you read The Straits Times, check other newspapers and websites as well to get the full story.

Here's to Dixie

Barack Obama is expected to snatch the lead again from Hillary Clinton in the South Carolina primary on January 26. Whatever happened to the Old South? Has it moved closer to the Equator?

The question crossed my mind when three Singapore blogs popped up on my Google Reader's Top Recommendations list last night. One of them is a National Resource, according to the National Library Board which is archiving the best Singapore blogs. Naturally, I scrolled through it and came to a post about a Malay girl who came first in the local primary school leaving examination in 2005. An Indian took the top spot in 2006 and another Malay last year.

But they were exceptions to the rule that the Chinese were academically superior to the Malay and Indian ethnic minorities in Singapore, said the National Resource. This was corroborated by the Ministry of Education figures for the last 10 years, he said.

He then offered his own theory about how the ethnic minorities might have ended up taking the top spots. The Chinese, Malays and Indians, all have to study their mother tongues. What if the Malays and Indians were more leniently graded than the Chinese? The Chinese would lose out. Oh, yes.

I don't know if that's true or not but it's human nature to speculate -- and for bloggers to bloviate.

It reminded me of To Kill A Mockingbird and how far Americans have come since then that so many of them want Obama in the White House. But it didn't happen in a day.

I am drawing no parallels with Singapore, where the Chinese, Malays, Indians all rise on their own merit, but looking back on the transition that America went through from To Kill A Mockingbird to Obama, I must quote the celebrated black American poet, Langston Hughes:

Singapore on a roll

This has been a great year for Singapore. This little city-state of 4.5 million people is making its economic presence felt across continents.

In India,Temasek Holdings, the Singapore government’s investment arm, has emerged as the largest private equity investor in terms of investments announced this year with about $2 billion worth of deals, reported the Economic Times.

More sexy, of course, are the conquests on Wall Street, in London and Switzerland. Temasek Holdings has just invested $4.4 billion stake in Merrill Lynch, not to be outdone by  its sibling Government of  Singapore Investment Corp, which invested $9.75 billion in the Swiss banking giant UBS earlier this month.

On Christmas Eve, Temasek also raised its stake in the British bank, Standard Chartered -- of which it is already the biggest shareholder -- to 18 per cent.

The deals have not attracted the kind of controversy Temasek has faced in Thailand and Indonesia. But the Chinese and the Arabs are also buying Western assets. And some are already expressing misgivings.

Western misgivings

The Economist worried aloud in July when Temasek and China Development Bank took a stake in Barclays. Nobody knows how politically motivated the sovereign funds might become, it said, adding they should be more transparent.

The sovereign funds raise special questions because the investment decisions are controlled by governments rather than individuals or corporations, reported the News Journal in Wilmington, Delaware. 

Top US government officials say the deals should not spark undue alarm, but do merit scrutiny, reported AFP. "The most obvious consideration is national security," Robert Kimmitt, the deputy US Treasury secretary, wrote in the latest edition of Foreign Affairs.

But the West has nothing to fear, says Anders Aslund in Foreign Policy, expressing a contrarian view so remarkable it bears quoting.

In truth, such funds are nothing for Americans or Europeans to fear. If anyone should worry about them, it’s the people whose governments are amassing them. That’s because governments tend to be terrible at managing money...

That's not true of the Singapore government which has been an excellent economic manager, as evident from the booming economy, but let's hear what Aslund has to say:

The motives of the funds vary, and they don’t always make sense. Consider Abu Dhabi and Kuwait, which wanted to save their oil endowment for future generations, an admirable goal. But today these two bureaucratised emirates look like poor cousins in comparison with freewheeling Dubai, which has much less oil. Because the rulers of Abu Dhabi and Kuwait centralized their nations’ wealth in the hands of the state, their state sectors stifled their economies. Abu Dhabi’s fund may be impressive, but the entrepreneurial emir of Dubai has done a far better job of putting sustainable wealth in the hands of his citizens.

Aslund has a few things to say about Singapore too. I won't go into that because I don't think he is right. Overall, this is what he has to say:

The only democratic country with a large sovereign wealth fund is Norway. Since the Norwegian fund was established in 1990, every incumbent government has lost elections because the opposition has promised all kinds of popular expenditures from the abundant fund. Democratically, it is difficult to defend an excessive public reserve fund.

Highest paid leader in the free world

" Singapore's politicians, already among the best paid in the world, will get a salary hike next year with Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong enjoying a 21 percent rise to 3.76 million Singapore dollars ($2.6 million)," reported Reuters.

Eat your hearts out, George Bush, Gordon Brown and all ye other leaders of the free world. Go green (with envy).

"Singapore's GDP per capita of $29,000 is only second to Japan in Asia, but its income inequality is more in line with third-world countries," said Reuters.

I don't know about that. But I do know now that PM Lee will be paid:

• More than six times as much as US President George W Bush
• Seven times as much as British Prime Minister Gordon Brown
• Seven and a half times as much as French President Nicolas Sarkozy
• Eight times as much as German Chancellor Angela Merkel
• 32 times as much as Russian President Vladimir Putin.

I realised that after reading this report in Forbes. It says:

• Bush is paid $400,000 a year, while his No. 2, Dick Cheney, pulls down $208,575.
• Gordon Brown gets $375,000.
• Nicolas Sarkozy draws $346,000.
• Angela Merkel is paid $318,000.
• Putin's official salary is $81,000.

"Top of the tree by some degree is Singapore Premier Lee Hsien Loong," said Forbes.

Singapore's other leaders are getting a pay rise too. Reuters reported:

President SR Nathan will receive 3.87 million Singapore dollars next year, while members of parliament, most of whom hold full-time jobs outside politics, will get an allowance of 225,000 Singapore dollars a year.

Singapore politicians peg their salaries to those of the country's highest-paid doctors, lawyers, bankers and other professionals and executives.

"In this tight labour market, where private sector salaries have moved up significantly, the civil service needs to follow promptly in order to attract and retain good people," the report quoted Teo Chee Hean, minister in charge of the civil service, as saying.

Google Reader recommends ... BT

Surprise, surprise, Singapore Press Holdings is pushing its content, giving away its stories for free! And one doesn't even have to ask for the stories, they poured in like unsolicited mail!

I couldn't believe my eyes when I opened my Google Reader last night. On the home page was a new section called Top Recommendations listing feeds I hadn't subscribed to but which Google Reader thought, based on my reading habits, I might be interested in. And there with a couple of popular Singapore blogs, an Indian business newspaper, the literary blog Elegant Variation, the opinion section of  London's Daily Telegraph and Forbes magazine was Singapore's very own Business Times (BT).

I only had to click on the titles to subscribe to them or preview their latest articles first before clicking on the Subscribe button or the hyperlink, "No, thank you". Adding or deleting feeds from Google Reader is as simple as that. Subscription is just as simple on Bloglines, which has offered similar recommendations for years, but Google Reader is much faster. Rather than visit various websites to find out what they have to offer, one can simply scroll through Google Reader and call up the more interesting stories. It simply collects all the stories from the various websites one has subscribed to.

But I didn't expect stories from the Business Times to pop up on my Google Reader. I hadn't asked for them. Not that I am complaining. But it's so unusual for Singapore Press Holdings to distribute its  content free of charge. Yes, the Business Times can be read online for free after 2pm every day. But its sister paper, the much more widely circulated Straits Times, gives very little away for free; one has to pay to read most of the stories.

I don't think the Business Times (circulation 30,400,according to the SPH website) is so desperate to increase readership that it's deliberately pushing stories like unsolicited mail. But like any other newspaper, it has an RSS feed which can be picked up by Google Reader, Bloglines, My Yahoo or any other news reader. But why send those stories to me? The Google Reader Help Centre has the answer:

"Your recommendations list is automatically generated. It takes into account the feeds you're already subscribed to, as well as information from your Web History, including your location."

And so Google Reader decided to "recommend" the Business Times stories to me.

The Business Times could restrict access to its RSS feed, like the Wall Street Journal does. But it isn't, letting Google Reader distribute it for free. That's pushing. Thank you!

Singapore education under Tharman

Who will be Singapore's next education minister now that Tharman Shanmugaratnam (picture from Singapore Ministry of Finance) becomes finance minister from tomorrow? The question assumes importance because though he has been a good education minister bold and innovative at the school level, Singapore has come down in the world of university rankings. The National University of Singapore dropped from 19th to 33rd and Nanyang Technological University from 61st to 69th in the 2007 Times Higher Education Supplement-Quacquarelli Symonds World University rankings published earlier this month.

Hong Kong universities have done significantly better with the University of Hong Kong moving up to 18th from 33rd, the Chinese University of Hong Kong up from 50th to 38th, and Hong Kong University of Science and Technology -- a new entry -- ranked 53rd in the same survey.

I wouldn't lose any sleep over the rankings for a simple reason. The University of Hong Kong is ranked 18th, Stanford 19th and Cornell 20th. But where would most students go if they had a choice? However, university rankings are taken seriously in Singapore. Education is a big business in Singapore, which attracts a lot of foreign students.

Singapore's efforts to woo foreign universities have suffered setbacks in recent years. Britain's Warwick University decided not to set up a  campus in Singapore, alleging a lack of political freedom in the city state, and Australia's University of New South Wales pulled out after failing to attract sufficient students.

But Singapore has enjoyed some notable success too with New York University's Tisch School of the Arts opening a campus in the city state.

On the whole, Singapore has done well with Tharman Shanmugaratnam as education minister.

Tharman, who takes over the finance portfolio from prime minister Lee Hsien Loong, is eminently qualified for the job, having been managing director of the central bank, Monetary Authority of Singapore. He has risen through sheer ability despite one run-in with the law. As Reuters points out:

He was fined 1,500 Singapore dollars as director of the central bank's economics department after being found guilty on one charge of endangering the secrecy of unpublished growth data in 1992. (The classified figures were published in Singapore's Business Times newspaper.)

He became a politician in 2001, and was appointed education minister in August 2004, before also becoming second minister for finance in May 2006.

Changi and Heathrow

Heathrow needs a third runway for Britain's continued prosperity as a world financial centre, the Guardian reported yesterday quoting Gordon Brown. Heathrow needs more than a new runway from my experience last month when I flew to London with my wife and my son. He is spending this semester at a university in Britain and will return to his college in America early next year.

We flew with Air India from Calcutta (Kolkata) to London. Heathrow is overpowering in its vastness and impersonality. The underground corridors we had to walk through seemed interminable, ditto the queues at immigration. The officer at the counter, however, once we reached him, was friendly. A bearded Sikh gentleman from India who has lived in Britain for more than two decades, he waved us through in no time.

Friendly too was the driver of the private taxi waiting for us. He took us in a lift down to the carpark, helped us with our luggage and pointed out the sights as he drove us to our friend's house.

I didn't realise how inconvenient Heathrow can be until I was back at the airport again with my wife for our return flight to Calcutta. A friend dropped us off. But we couldn't just drive up to the terminal and alight at the kerb the way we do at Changi airport here in Singapore and Dum Dum airport in Calcutta. We had to walk quite a long way from the dropoff point. The busy traffic made things worse. Our friend couldn't wait with cars piling up behind him. We had to get out of the car and grab a trolley and push off fast. Luckily, there were two of us. My wife could keep an eye on the luggage while I got the trolley.

As we walked to the airport terminal, the traffic and the crowd reminded me of the Howrah and Sealdah railway stations in Calcutta. But not even the bustle outside prepared me for the scene inside -- it was so crowded. I thanked my lucky stars we were flying to Calcutta and not to Bombay. The queue for the Air India Bombay flight snaked so long the head was hardly visible from the tail.

But I was impressed by the politeness of the airport staff and the security people and the order they maintained. The security checks proceeded smoothly, which seemed amazing considering the sheer number of people involved. The only place where I have seen so many airline passengers is O'Hare in Chicago, and there too the checks were smooth and efficient, but it's amazing all the same.

After the checks, of course, we had to cool our heels for the boarding gates to open. It was good we could rest our feet, for when the gates did open, we had to take another long walk. We had to walk for almost 20 minutes according to the TV monitor in the waiting lounge showing the distance to the gates.

The little airport in Calcutta seemed so pleasant after the vastness of Heathrow. As usual, we had to wait a long time to get our luggage; Calcutta isn't the most efficient of airports, but it's not big and impersonal.

And now I am back in Singapore. My wife is in Calcutta, my son in Britain. Much as I miss them, I must admit there's a lot to appreciate about Singapore -- not least of all, its airport. I didn't have to walk a long way to the immigration counter. My suitcases arrived smoothly, shortly after I reached the baggage carousel. I could push the trolley all the way to the taxi stand just outside the arrival lounge. Changi airport is designed for happy landings. 

Singapore's uncertain future

Anyone interested in Singapore or thinking of coming or settling here should read Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew’s interview in the International Herald Tribune. He is not even sure if Singapore has a future.

"We have survived so far, 42 years," he says. "Will we survive for another 42? It depends upon world conditions. It doesn't depend on us alone."

This coming from Singapore’s first prime minister -- whose son, Lee Hsien Loong, is now the prime minister –- shows how vulnerable Singapore is. Even the leadership admits the future depends on external factors.

MM Lee has spoken of Singapore’s vulnerability before. But it’s alarming when he says:

“Our armed forces can withstand an attack and inflict damage for two weeks, three weeks, but a siege? (he laughs ),” reports the Herald Tribune.

The Herald Tribune comments:

This sense of vulnerability is Lee's answer to all his critics, to those who say his country is too tightly controlled, that it leashes the press, suppresses free speech, curtails democracy, tramples on dissidents and stunts entrepreneurship and creativity in its citizens.

But I can’t quite agree when MM Lee says Singapore is “ideology-free”.

It’s a small island with a big government which runs on a strange mixture of capitalism and statism. There’s a huge income gap with ministers earning million-dollar salaries on the principle of meritocracy that talent should be rewarded. On the other hand, the state presence can be felt everywhere. Virtually every major Singapore company is government-linked. Even when Singaporeans die, they are subject to government rules. Their organs can be recycled by the state and used in transplants to save the lives of others.

This benevolent omnipotence of the state is the result of the way Singapore developed. Everything from public housing to major local business enterprises had to be created by the government.

Modern Singapore -- "an economic powerhouse with one of the world's highest per capita incomes, high-quality schools, health care and public services" -- is MM Lee’s “creation”, as the Herald Tribune says. He himself is more modest. “I wasn't a loner. I had some very powerful minds working with me,” he says.

But what’s intriguing is why, if the country has such a good education system, the minister’s sons and government scholars go abroad for higher studies. MM Lee says:

"I've got one grandson gone to MIT. Another grandson had been in the American school here (in Singapore). Because he was dyslexic and we then didn't have the teachers to teach him how to overcome or cope with his dyslexia, so he was given exemption to go to the American school. He speaks like an American. He's going to Wharton."

So the latter is continuing his American education. But what about the other? Why go to MIT and not the National University of Singapore? After all, it’s ranked among the best in the world –- or so the newspapers say.

Is it because studying abroad makes one more cosmopolitan? Or is it something to do with the quality of education?

MM Lee himself went to Cambridge. And he is absolutely brilliant.

He is spot on when he says the United States has become so preoccupied with the Middle East that it is neglecting Asia. China’s power is growing, he points out.  And who knows what the consequences of that might be?

The Straits Times praised

Singapore doesn’t have a free press, according to organizations such as Freedom House. But The Straits Times newspaper published by Singapore Press Holdings has one of the most advanced news websites in the world, according to teachers at Ball State University’s College of Communication, Information and Media (CCIM), one of the biggest media colleges in the US.

Stressing the need for “digital convergence” or multimedia news websites which update round the clock, they say:

Media companies in Southeast Asia and Scandinavia have embraced digital convergence most widely as of mid-2005. In Southeast Asia the leaders include Star Publications in Kuala Lumpur, the Malaysian capital; the Nation group in Thailand; the Singapore Press Holdings Group, which publishes the prestigious Straits Times newspaper; and the Ming Pao Group in Hong Kong.

I am quoting from the book, Convergent Journalism: An Introduction, edited by Stephen Quinn and Vincent F Filak. Filak teaches at Ball State in Muncie, Indiana, where Quinn also taught in the past.

The BBC, the Guardian and the Financial Times are among the European leaders in digital convergence, they add, along with the Aftenbladet newspaper in Sweden and the Aftenposten in Norway. Interestingly both Aftenbladet and Aftenposten are published by the same Scandinavian media company, Schibsted, with which Singapore Press Holdings will be developing a new local search engine. It will give information exclusively on Singapore.

American pioneers in digital convergence include the Washington Post, Los Angeles Times and the Chicago Tribune and several Florida newspapers, according to the book.

But is it possible to compare news sites from around the world? Click on the links and see.

I check the BBC and the Guardian every day, the Washington Post often, see the RSS feeds from the Los Angeles Times and the Chicago Tribune occasionally and visit the Straits Times a couple of times a week. Necessity compelled me to stop subscribing to the newspaper, which has a circulation of 388,500. Now for Singapore news I depend on Channel NewsAsia, a Singapore news channel with a free website. The Straits Times online like the New York Times includes “premium” content, available only to subscribers.