By Nix

Some of Murdoch University’s top researchers will lead a project aimed at enhancing productivity and innovation in Singapore’s manufacturing industry.
Work will begin early this year on a 12 month benchmarking study, with SGD$529,000 awarded to Murdoch by the Singapore Government through the Singapore Innovation and Productivity Institute.
“Singapore is currently in a period of low productivity growth, compared to other developed nations,” said Murdoch University’s Singapore Dean Associate Professor Peter Waring.
“The Singapore Government has identified this as its most important economic priority as it wishes to remain competitive internationally.” Read the rest [link]

[spacer style=”1″ icon=”none”] Perhaps I’m too new to Australia to appreciate their level of innovation in manufacturing. The company I am working for is using almost pre-historic equipment to produce and we are constantly begging the boss in Asia to get provide us one of those state-of-the-art machines they are using in Singapore and Malaysia. Of course, I understand that my company is not a good representation of the Australia manufacturing industry. Still, are the manufacturing industries Australia particularly productive and innovative such that Singapore should fork out half a million bucks to research on? Didn’t the Straits Times and the PAP government repeatedly tell Singaporeans that the “White Thrash” were too lazy, unproductive and it would be dire to learn from their ways?
So something has changed since then?
My first thought was why Australia and not Germany or even Korea? Only our government can answer that, I suppose. I can’t help but laugh when I read the second last paragraph of the article which goes like this, “Singaporeans are already looking to Australia for its innovative practices, notably in the construction industry.”
Oh right. So we are talking.
If the Singapore government is interested in improving construction standards and innovation, there is nowhere better to look than Japan. And by that I don’t mean the Japanese main contractors in Singapore. It is widely accepted that the Japanese run their construction projects with the most efficient, clean and safe methods. I think that is the way to go.
Truth to be told, I’m secretly delighted that some government body actually realised that our standard of our construction industry in Singapore is, for want of a better word, third world. I might not have been in the construction industry for a long time but I had seen enough examples from people of all levels – be it business owners, construction managers, project engineers or site supervisors – regard the mother of all construction solutions to be “put more people.” I.e. to spam the project with as many foreign workers on the job as possible to finish the projects in the shortest possible time.

I apologise for using an illustration of the Egyptians using Jewish slaves to build their ancient buildings. That would be an insult to their amazing engineering that stood the test of time. Unlike the masterwork of the Egyptians, the recent projects in Singapore were completed by flogging the dead horse and had been in shambles in terms of quality. Just look at the Downtown Line, leaky new structures everywhere and things going out of operation. In terms of labour resource management, it was as good as modern slavery. I believe I do not need to elaborate on this. I had seen it with my own eyes during my A&A project in NUS AS2 building. Foreign workers, being paid on $2 per hour were sent in by the doves by a competitor contractor to finish the job quickly late one evening, away from public eye and where safety officials were more ‘relaxed’. The foreign workers carried chunky steel channels by hand, sometimes 8 of them together to lift a heavy one like how the older Singaporean sons did their log PT during National Service. I asked the manager of that team why he chose to do that instead of hiring a crane to do the job. His reply was,

Siao ah, 150 ton crane 1 hour $800 leh, my 50 workers only $100 per hour.” (Siao – Crazy in the Hokkien dialect )

As our project was on the roof of level 5, 6 and 7 of the Arts and Social Science Block 2 building, we needed at least a 150 tonnes crane in order to stretch its boom to reach level 7 from the nearest ground safe enough for a crane set up. That was probably a classic situation of construction innovation. Innovation? Is there any incentive to do that where there is an easier way out between a business owner and the bank? In our case, spamming 50 workers on the roof appeared to be one. Can you beat 50 workers with innovation to paint a house or to sweep up the streets? Not when they cost $100 an hour. It would cost the Australian boss $1000/hour to hire 50 labourers or $2000-3000/hour to hire 50 tradesmen. Do you understand the secrets of innovation now, Singapore government?
Innovation is a motivation. It is not a talent exclusive to any race or nationality. Even Singaporeans, who are known to be rigid in the mind due to our education system, can innovate. Before the government spends half a million bucks, they should understand the philosophies behind motivations of innovation. Some say necessity or laziness is the mother of all inventions. I think there is wisdom in these sayings. If the Aussies have excess to a $2 per hour labour pool, would I still witness so often here how entire workshop steel structure were constructed by only 2 tradesmen, a mobile crane, a forklift and a boom lift?
Truth to be told, there is very little we can do to emulate the Aussie way of construction. By making the grave mistake of forcing out the skilled tradesmen during our fathers’ generation, we have lost a full generation of know-hows and skillful hands that education will never replace in a short 1-2 decades. The government was too casual in approaching this matter and thought that cheap foreign workers were a viable solution for the long term. Perhaps they are slowly beginning to see light to the folly of their ways. Who knows, that $529,000 may just go down the drain after the officials found the studies unimpressive and “irrelevant” solutions to Singapore’s needs. We’ll never know. Does anyone in Singapore know we spent this money in the first place?
This article was first published in Nix’s blog at “A Singaporean in Australia“.

Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

人民币兑美元破七!美国列中国为汇率操纵国

继人民币兑美元汇率跌“破七”后,美国政府认定中国正在操纵人民币汇率,25年来首次将中国列为汇率操纵国。 据《法新社》周二(6日)报道,在川普的关税威胁下,中国人民币汇率贬值破七,引发北京当局允许货币币值以抗衡美国关税威胁的臆测。报道续指,人民币并不是可自由兑换的货币,但自周一早晨,人民币一度由6.9225兑换1美元贬到7.11兑1美元,后来回涨到7.0282兑1美元。 美国财政部长姆努钦(Steven Mnuchin)周一(5日)发布声明,称中国央行的声明犹如公开承认具有操纵汇率的经验,表示“美国政府认定中国在操纵人民币汇率”,并称将与国际货币基金组织(IMF)合作,消除来自中国的不公平竞争”。 汇率操纵国指一个国家人为地操控汇率,使汇率显得相对低,令其出口价看似便宜,或会引起进口贸易伙伴批评它为汇率操纵国。由于产品较便宜,人们喜欢它的产品并减少购买本土产品。这将导致入口国就业流失。操纵国则牺牲别国利益而为本国创造更多就业机会及享受较高的国内生产总值。 对此,华中科技大学经贸系教授陈波分析,此次中国破七元关卡,是为了消耗先前累积的压力,加上美国关税威胁,而适时贬值可以分担关税的压力。 自中美两国于上周上海恢复贸易谈判后,双方并未取得重大进展,而且美国总统川普同天内宣布将对几乎全部中国对美出口产品征收关税的决定,使短暂停止的中美贸易战再次重燃战火。本周一(5日),人民币兑美元离岸价和在岸价双双破“7”,是自2015汇改以来首次处于最低位。 然而,美国方面则认为,中国通过贬值促进出口,以抵消关税带来的影响。川普随后在推特批评中方“操纵汇率”。 China dropped the price…

疫情持续 今年的澳洲“袋鼠”演习不办了

有鉴于全球冠状病毒19 疫情仍持续,新加坡武装部队已决定今年暂停所有大规模海外军事演习,包括每年都在澳洲举行的“袋鼠”演习(Exercise Wallaby)。 国防部在今日(12日)发文告表示,所有大规模的海外演习暂停。若疫情有个赛山,新加坡才会持续在澳洲的较小规模培训活动,惟必须遵守安全需求,以避免病毒传播。 “袋鼠”演习自1990年来就延续至今,是武装部队最大型的海外演习,在昆士兰州的肖尔沃特湾训练区(SWBTA)进行。 国防部感谢澳洲政府和国防部、以及当地居民常年来对我部队的支持。该部也强调,新澳双边防御关系仍牢固,在澳洲昆士兰中部和北部,两国共同开罚的训练去和现金培训措施,将强化防御合作,使两国部队受惠。

Record number of closure of private schools in 2016, but world renowned schools too?

I refer to the article “Private school closures in Singapore hit record…

新加坡的前车之鉴:因少数精英集权终至衰亡的威尼斯

《海峡时报》前总编冯元良,在《南华早报》撰文,认为新加坡应以史为鉴,他提出800多年前的意大利城邦国家威尼斯,以商贸起家盛极一时,但晚期却因为贵族精英独揽权力,扼杀公民参与决策权,最终引致威尼斯的衰亡。 冯元良在这篇评论文章指出,首先,中世纪早期的威尼斯,之所以能崛起成为强大“海洋帝国”(威尼斯方言称为Stato da Mar),乃是因为威尼斯公民能对行政有话事权,以及可以分享国家的繁荣成果。1171年,实权总督的权力,被稀释下放给主要由商人组成的大议会。 遴选大议会成员的过程也近似民主制度。候选人提名者乃是抽签决定。提名人推举的候选人名单公布,威尼斯公民即可投票选出属意的候选人进入议会。 当代一项具显著意义的制度乃是“colleganze”,即以合股公司心事,来资助远洋商贸探险。商人发起远洋探险航程,而街上任何男性,都可以购买其中一小部分股份来牟利。 经济市场是开放的,任何精打细算的公民都可以从远行至摩洛哥和土耳其进行香料贸易的远航图利,也激发基层企业家精神。几乎没有任何官僚主义的阻,当时的威尼斯,成为该区域最大的商贸城邦国家。 那么,遥远年代的威尼斯,和今天的新加坡有何意义? 新加坡人有否足够发言权? 我认为,威尼斯的兴亡,有值得同样作为城邦国家的新加坡借鉴的地方。首先,除了大选以外,新加坡人是否有足够的发言权?如果国人对影响他们生活的政策有意见,他们的声音是否又被听到? 其二,新加坡的经济繁荣成果,有没有广泛、深入地分享给各阶层国人?如果不是,新加坡又该在不影响国家竞争力和成长前景的情况,解决这种不平等现象? 再者,即便许多保护政策都是出于善意,但这些保障和限制是否束缚了我们在面对21世纪充满变数的经济所需要的承担风险和创业拼搏精神?…