When politicians, "experts" etc. talk rubbish

[LITTLEREDDOT]

Forum: Equitability of condo charges shouldn't be based on parking​

June 6, 2022

Straits Times associate editor Chua Mui Hoong said that "in any typical condo, the non-car owners are subsidising the car owners for the use of parking space", which she saw as a not very equitable distribution of benefits (Do car owners enjoy hidden privileges most of us do not even think about?, June 3).
It seems short-sighted to base equitability on parking when talking about condo charges.
I am an elderly car owner living in a condo. I am unable to use facilities such as the swimming pools, jacuzzi, golf practice green and tennis courts.
Is it equitable for me to subsidise the residents who use these facilities, which incur much higher maintenance costs than a mere parking space?

Lim Siat Foong

 

[LITTLEREDDOT]

Forum: Car ownership can't be considered a symbol of privilege now​

June 6, 2022

I refer to the commentary by Straits Times associate editor Chua Mui Hoong, "Do car owners enjoy hidden privileges most of us do not even think about?" (June 3).
Ms Chua's analysis raises important points to ponder. However, the commentary appears to characterise the car as a luxury product. This is not necessarily the case.
To her question on why roads need to be so big, the answer is safety, liveability and the evolution of cars.
Cars have grown in size. Cities (and some carparks in Singapore) that did not keep up have become more difficult and dangerous to drive in.
I do agree with Ms Chua that public roads in front of a landed property are a public good, and parking there for free ought to be treated as illegal parking.
In our push for a car-lite Singapore, it is not fair to paint the car as something used by only the rich.
The question of whether or not it is a privilege falls back on the question: "How big is your Singapore?"

If you or your family members have to travel all over the island many times in a day for work or school, your Singapore is "bigger", making a personal car more of a need than a privilege.
The roads are used by all. Industrial vehicles forming part of the supply chain must use the roads; we do not have rail alternatives in Singapore.
Private-hire vehicles and taxis provide people with an alternative means of transport should they be caught in bad weather or be pressed for time. Motorcyclists also share the roads, and they benefit from larger roads that give them space.
I am with Ms Chua for a car-lite Singapore, but feasible alternatives must exist for that to happen.
Perhaps in the future, if technology advances and smaller, driverless vehicles ply the road, we would need less road space and even fewer carparks. Maybe then we could say that the personal car is a symbol of privilege.

Benjamin Chiang

 

[LITTLEREDDOT]

Right up there with:
Goh Chok Tong: "If there is no recession, I worry"
Desmond Lee: "Controlling the rent of coffee shop stalls might reduce incentive for coffee shop owners to invest in the improvement of their facilities and services."
Halimah Yacob: "When chicken is too expensive, eat fish."

​

COE breaching $100,000 can be a good thing​

Christopher Tan
Senior Transport Correspondent

More broadly, a $100,000 COE means the rich are contributing more to Singapore's tax coffers, which is a good thing. PHOTO: ST FILE


JUN 9, 2022

SINGAPORE - Certificate of entitlement (COE) premiums for bigger, more powerful cars crossed $100,000 on Wednesday (June 8) - the highest since 1994.
This is not entirely a surprise, given the seasonally small supply of certificates paired with robust demand from a growing affluent class and uncontrolled optimism among fleet operators.
The latter consists of ride-hailing, car-sharing, vehicle subscription, car rental and mobility-as-a-service firms which are tapping into a market of at least 800,000 households which do not have cars.
What does a $100,000 COE mean, though?
By itself, it has little significance, representing increases of a few per cent from the previous premiums three weeks ago. It means consumers will now pay a few thousand dollars more for their cars, which in the bigger scheme of things, is miniscule - given that bigger, more powerful cars often cost upwards of $200,000.
Beyond the obvious, it means the rich have become richer - or become more plentiful. This is reflected not just by the six-digit COE, but by the gap between big-car premium and small-car premium.
Since late last year, the gap has grown from a few thousand dollars to a wide chasm of around $30,000. This difference reflects a wealth disparity which has became starker since the Covid-19 pandemic.

Forbes magazine last year reported that the richest Americans became 40 per cent richer in 2020, partly on the back of soaring stock and property prices. It would be strange if this development was unique to the US.
More broadly, a $100,000 COE means the rich are contributing more to Singapore's tax coffers, which is a good thing.
According to back-of-envelope calculations, $127.7 million was collected in COE revenue from Wednesday's tender, of which more than half came from the B and Open categories. The latter is used almost exclusively for registration of bigger, more powerful cars, and is fuelling the growth in Singapore's car population despite an official zero growth policy.

If this quantum is sustained yearly, COE revenue will amount to $3.06 billion - more than enough to offset the $2 billion spent yearly on public transport subsidies.


And this is just COE, without the slew of other vehicle-related taxes car buyers have to pay here. And like COE, the wealthier cohort pay more of such taxes, including a progressively punitive Additional Registration Fee.
Nothing wrong with that. The rich should give back more to society, and the COE system is one of a few effective levellers in this respect. Stamp duty for the purchase and transfer of properties is the other. Petrol duty is yet another.
A less palatable side of lofty COE prices is it hinders the adoption of cleaner energy vehicles, since most hybrid and electric cars fall under Category B. The tax rebates doled out to encourage the adoption of such vehicles are all but negated by the $30,000 price premium buyers have to pay for their COE.


Businesses are not spared. The growing list of car manufacturers looking to sell vehicles directly to consumers will have to set aside a ransom for COE bidding. Unless of course, they adopt Tesla's approach of selling cars without COE. This approach, as seen from past tenders, only puts extra upward pressure on COE prices.
One way of fixing this is to refine the COE system by removing the Open category. This category was put in place in the early years of the system, when tenders were held once a month. It served as a "safety valve" to temper bids from aggressive or speculative bidders.
Currently, tenders are held twice a month. The urgency to clinch a COE to obtain a vehicle is thus reduced. And as mentioned, Open has become the exclusive proxy for Category B.
All things being equal, removing the Open category and redistributing its COEs to the other categories is likely to ease bidding pressure for buyers and sellers of commercial vehicles and smaller cars.
It is likely to have an opposite effect on buyers and sellers of bigger, more powerful cars. They will probably have to brace themselves for further price increases if they do not alter their bidding strategies.
The jewelled class can well afford it. But what about buyers of lower emission vehicles? Well, that can be solved if the power cap in Category A can be raised for electric and full hybrid models.

Last month, the Category A power cap for electric cars was raised to 110kW or 148bhp - merely 18bhp above the previous cap. Raising this to 120kW and expanding it to include full-hybrid models will have a more meaningful outcome.
Doing so will increase bidding pressure in Category A, but it will be mitigated by the redistribution of Open COEs.
In fact, a bolder step would be to claw back some Category B COEs for redistribution, since buyers and sellers of Category B cars have long been the sole beneficiary of the Open category.
Another way would be to once and for all delink COE quota from past deregistration of vehicles. This will flatten the peak-and-trough supply pattern which has seen COE prices swinging from below $10,000 to above $100,000.
A flattened supply curve will prove unpopular with those waiting patiently for a COE supply bonanza that is a few years down the road, but it will be positive in the long term.
Better still, do both of the above.

 

[LITTLEREDDOT]

Rubbish survey.
The food stalls may not have raised prices but they cut down on the portion sizes and/or ingredients.

Study finds eating out cheapest in Toa Payoh, most expensive in Bishan; many food stalls didn't raise prices following GST hike​

TODAY file photoAn Institute of Policy Studies report found that on average, a person in Singapore spends S$16.89 if he eats all three meals at hawker centres, food courts and kopitiams.
Follow us on Instagram and Tiktok, and join our Telegram channel for the latest updates.

• Researchers from the Institute of Policy Studies visited 829 eateries across Singapore to gather prices of food and drinks in late 2022
• When they revisited some of them again in early 2023, they found that many of them had not raised prices
• Stall owners spoke of hardships of having to manage rising operation costs and not raising prices by too much for fear of driving away customers
• On average, a person spends S$16.89 if he eats all three meals at hawker centres, food courts and kopitiams
• Toa Payoh reported the lowest cost of S$15.98 for each person, while Bishan featured the highest average three-meal cost of S$18

BY

NAVENE ELANGOVAN​

Published March 13, 2023


SINGAPORE — Despite the rising costs of operating a food stall in hawker centres, food courts and kopitiams, many stall owners did not raise prices between late last year and early this year, a study has found.
Of those who did, the majority increased prices only by a small margin — not exceeding 30 cents for each food item they sold — for fear of driving away their customers. And for most food items surveyed, price increases did not exceed 10 cents on average.
The study by the Institute of Policy Studies (IPS), released on Monday (March 13), also found that the iced Milo chocolate drink had the highest relative increase in prices, going up by 12 cents, or 7 per cent on average. A total of 23 out of 55 stalls surveyed raised their prices of the drink, whereas the rest did not.
Sliced fish soup with rice went up by 28 cents, or about 5 per cent, and fishball noodles rose by 19 cents, which is also about 5 per cent.
Seven out of 19 sliced fish soup sellers surveyed raised prices for the dish, and 11 out of 30 fishball noodle sellers did the same.

​

The study was done by recording food and drink prices from 829 food establishments between September and November 2022.
After the increase in the Goods and Services Tax (GST) in Jan 1 this year, researchers revisited 50 establishments, comprising a total of 263 stalls, in January and February to record any price changes.
The researchers said that the study served to “examine the effects, if any, of the increase of the GST on food prices”.
The study, titled The Cost of Eating Out: Findings from the Makan Index 2.0, was conducted by IPS researchers Teo Kay Key, Hanniel Lim and Mindy Chong.
They said that the survey was done as a way to better understand the costs of living in Singapore and does not provide any value judgement on the pricing strategy of food establishments.
As food and drink prices were collected mainly through menus at stalls, the researchers said that some prices might be understated especially if menu prices were not updated regularly.

​

Another note was that the smaller number of establishments revisited was partly because many had later closed down or changed hands, they added.

WHY IT MATTERS​

The rising cost of living has been closely watched, with Singapore’s core inflation rate rising by 5.5 per cent in January, the fastest pace in more than 14 years.
GST was increased from 7 per cent to 8 per cent on Jan 1, affecting consumer spending.
The Household Expenditure Survey in 2017 and 2018 showed that around 7.4 per cent of a household’s spending went to the types of food that hawker centres, food courts and coffee shops serve. In comparison, only 6.4 per cent of expenses were spent on recreation and culture and 5.5 per cent of expenses were spent on health.
"Given the culture of eating out in Singapore, many Singaporeans are likely to head to one of these food establishments to have their meals if they decide not to prepare their own meal at home," the researchers stated in the executive summary of their report.
"Examining data on food prices in these locations thus allows us to examine trends on price variations based on different factors and derive the estimated eating-out budget of an average Singaporean, which will further (aid) understanding on one aspect of living costs in Singapore."

Infographic: Samuel Woo

WHAT THE STUDY FOUND​

​

Researchers studied a variety of food and drink items commonly consumed during breakfast, lunch or dinner. They also took into account dietary restrictions when selecting which food items to consider.
A total of 18 items were included in the study, including kopi-o (black coffee), breakfast sets (kaya toast, two soft-boiled eggs and a coffee or tea), mee rebus, wanton noodles, economy rice (rice with two vegetables and one meat), and economy bee hoon sets (bee hoon with fried egg and chicken wing).
Researchers then collected drink and food prices from the menus of 829 food establishments, comprising 92 hawker centres, 101 food courts and 636 kopitiams within 26 residential neighbourhoods in Singapore.

Infographic: Samuel Woo

REGIONAL DIFFERENCES IN FOOD AND DRINK PRICES​

Apart from price increases, researchers also found "regional differences" for nine out of 18 food and drinks selected for the study.

• All the drinks (kopi-o, kopi, iced Milo, iced lime juice, canned drink with ice) as well as chicken chop were cheapest in the central region of Singapore
• Breakfast sets and fishball noodles were cheapest in the north of Singapore
• Roti prata was cheapest in the western region

With some exceptions, food courts generally priced their offerings at higher prices, followed by kopitiams and then hawker centres. The food items that did not follow these trends were breakfast sets, chicken rice, economic rice and vegetarian bee hoon sets.
"These trends clearly indicate that while food establishments like hawker centres, food courts and kopitiams are viewed as more affordable options, there is still variation in the prices of food and drinks sold in these establishments, depending on the content," the researchers said.

TOTAL MEAL COSTS​

​

Across the neighbourhoods studied, researchers found that breakfast on average cost S$4.81, lunch S$6.01, dinner S$6.20. Each meal comprises a food and a drink, and the study derived these costs by aggregating the average of various food and drink combinations based on convention and the opening times of stalls.
On average, a person spends S$16.89 if he eats all three meals at hawker centres, food courts and kopitiams.
When comparing between neighbourhoods, researchers found that the differences in costs for lunches and dinners to be statistically significant.
Marine Parade had the highest average breakfast cost at S$5.12, Sembawang reported the highest average lunch cost at S$6.35 and Jurong East reported the highest average dinner cost at S$6.71.
In contrast, Queenstown reported the lowest average breakfast cost at S$4.33, Kallang reported the lowest average lunch cost at S$5.64 while Toa Payoh reported the lowest average dinner cost at S$5.89.
When adding up all three meals, Toa Payoh reported the lowest cost of S$15.98 for an individual, while Bishan featured the highest average meal cost of S$18.
Bukit Timah was excluded from these comparisons due to the small sample size — the neighbourhood only had three kopitiams and two hawker centres located within its boundaries.

Infographic: Samuel Woo

CHANGES IN FOOD PRICES​

The researchers also revisited 50 food establishments to make comparisons of prices between late 2022 and early 2023.
They found that most stall owners in these establishments did not raise prices of food that they sold, and a majority of those increased their prices only by a small margin. The average increases in prices at these revisited stalls did not exceed 30 cents, and did not go above 10 cents for most food items.
Apart from the numbers, the researchers also struck up conversations with the stall owners who spoke of the "hardships of having to manage the rising cost of operation and not increasing prices by too much in order to not drive away customers".
"From various interactions with stall owners, researchers found that stall owners often sought to justify the prices of their food.
"They also emphasised their decision to not increase prices if they had not done so, and took pride in keeping their prices the same despite the inflationary pressures threatening many food stall owners’ income and job security," the report stated.
Giving an example, researchers said that a drink stall owner at a Tampines hawker centre who had not raised prices since 2020 later did so reluctantly in 2023, because he could not cope with the rising cost of ingredients such as eggs and evaporated milk at the prices for which he was selling his food. He was trying hard not to disappoint his loyal customers.

LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY​

Addressing the smaller number of eateries revisited, the researchers said that this was partly due to stalls undergoing changes, such as business closure or changes in ownership, during the period of data collection. The other reasons were due to time and manpower constraints.
"While the stalls we surveyed during the data collection process might have closed or changed hands for various reasons, news reports indicate that stall owners who had closed their stalls during this period cited rising operating prices for the closing of their stalls with both rental and ingredient prices increasing drastically over the past year," the researchers added.
It was still "evident" that most stall owners in the revisited food establishments did not increase the prices of the food items they sold, though the researchers cautioned against making sweeping conclusions from the analysis of the data.
Other limitations included:

• A primary dependence on menu prices, rather than the interviewing of stall owners due to time constraints and the reluctance of some owners to verbally disclose their prices. This may lead to the understating of prices, especially if menu prices were not regularly updated
• The prices of food items were taken at face value, which means that they have not been adjusted to reflect the differences in quantity and quality between various food items

In response to queries from TODAY about public reaction on whether other considerations were taken into account for the study, since food prices could have been raised significantly prior to the survey, the researchers said that their study only looked at increases following the GST hike and not increases owing to other factors such as the Covid-19 pandemic or the Russia-Ukraine war.
The researchers also noted that their study had specified that the quality and quantity of food were not accounted for, and that the difference in prices could have reflected variations in these aspects.
As to whether the study had accounted for price differences due to the type of food establishment, they said that they had used a standardised criteria to classify establishment types to reflect difference in food prices. For example, hawker centres were defined in the study as "open-air, standalone complexes with many food and drink stalls" while food courts were defined as air-conditioned food establishments.
The researchers reiterated that the focus of the study was to provide an "in-depth regional analysis of food prices" at the time of data collection, which was between September to November last year, and not on price differences between 2022 and 2023.

 

[LITTLEREDDOT]

#trending: Singapore netizens say cost of eating out has risen, disagree with findings of food prices survey​

Ili Nadhirah Mansor/TODAY
A survey by the Institute of Policy Studies concluded that many food stall holders had not raised prices after the Goods and Services Tax increase in January 2023, while those that had done so raised prices by marginal sums.
Follow us on Instagram and Tiktok, and join our Telegram channel for the latest updates.

• An Institute of Policy Studies' survey found that prices of food outlets such as hawker centres and food courts have remained mostly the same between late 2022 and early 2023, after the GST increase
• Online users disputed the results of the survey and questioned its accuracy, with many claiming that food prices have risen
• Stall owners surveyed by IPS indicated that they may raise prices in the future
• IPS clarified that the survey only looked at food price increases following the GST hike, between September to November 2022 and January to February this year

BY

LEE WENXIN​

Published March 14, 2023

SINGAPORE — A survey that found that many food stalls did not raise prices after the recent Goods and Services Tax (GST) increase has been disputed by some online users, who claimed that food prices were firmly on the rise.
The study by the Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) found that many hawker centre, food court and kopitiam stall owners did not raise prices between late last year and early this year despite rising operational costs.
Even among those who did raise prices, the increase was a small margin of not more than 30 cents for each food item, the IPS survey showed. The findings were released on Monday (March 13).
The online community, however, disagreed with the research conclusions, with some calling into question the accuracy of the study.
An Instagram user on TODAY’s post of the IPS study wrote: “Last time a kopitiam bento set could go for $5.50, now $7; coffee or Milo around $1.80, now $2 plus; is this research legit?”

​

Another wrote: “It's no way close to reality. Go to all the schools and ask the children to write the prices of all their daily meals including drinks they had for a month outside of schools, then come back with the data.”
Social media users also noted instances of so-called "shrinkflation" — when prices of goods remain the same but the quantity decreases — which may have resulted in the survey results being inaccurate.
One Instagram user said: “The portion sizes are now so small that you can probably take these 'findings' with a pinch of salt.”
A Facebook user agreed: “Cost is one thing but size or volume can be another. Many could have reduced (amount) to keep price low but consumers may need to eat double to fill up.”
Online users also lamented that wage increases cannot match the rising cost of living, especially with another impending GST hike at the start of 2024.
“I can imagine prices will increase another 10 per cent when GST increases again at the end of the year. The thing is, my salary only increased 3.6 per cent this year. Life is hard...”
Some people shared their cost-saving tips with fellow Singaporeans.
“Personally, if you hunt around, you can do lower than $15 a day," one wrote.
The commenter said that three curry puffs costing $1 each would do for breakfast.
"A can of luncheon meat and baked beans cost $2.50 and 92 cents respectively. Will do for lunch. Dinner of two vegetables and one meat will be under $4.''

IPS CLARIFIES DATA COLLECTION METHODLOGY THAT WAS USED​

IPS conducted the survey by collecting the first round of data from September to November 2022, before the GST rose from 7 to 8 per cent in January this year.
They then collated prices from January to February after the GST increase and compared them with the prices before the tax increase.

​

Some stall owners have indicated that they have not raised prices for the time being, but might consider price increases in the future, IPS said, adding that the prices studied were taken off menus, which may or may not be updated to reflect real-time prices.
The prices were also taken from food establishments that were seen as more affordable such as food courts, hawker centres and kopitiams. Prices of restaurants or food delivery services are likely to increase exponentially, IPS added.
In response to queries from TODAY, researchers clarified that their study only looked at increases following the GST hike and not increases owing to other factors such as the Covid-19 pandemic or the Russia-Ukraine war.
They also noted that their study had specified that the quality and quantity of food were not accounted for, and that the difference in prices could have reflected variations in these aspects.
As to whether the study had accounted for price differences due to the type of food establishment, they said that they had used a standardised criteria to classify establishment types to reflect difference in food prices.
For example, hawker centres were defined in the study as "open-air, standalone complexes with many food and drink stalls" while food courts were defined as air-conditioned food establishments.
The researchers reiterated that the focus of the study was to provide an "in-depth regional analysis of food prices" at the time of data collection, which was between September to November last year, and not on price differences between 2022 and 2023.
The cost of eating out here is likely to continue to go up relative to individual and household incomes, IPS warned.
Hawker food may no longer remain as cheap compared to other meal options in the current economic climate.

 

[LITTLEREDDOT]

Forum: Inflation data should take into account shrinkflation​

Mar 30, 2023

It was reported that food inflation was unchanged in February at 8.1 per cent, as a steeper increase in non-cooked food prices was offset by a smaller rise in the prices of prepared meals (Singapore core inflation holds firm at 14-year high of 5.5% in February, March 23).
There are many occurrences of shrinkflation taking place which may not be reflected by the reported food inflation rate.
Many food vendors have started to charge for ingredients that used to be free or have always been part of a dish.
A bowl of sliced fish soup used to come with a dash of evaporated milk. Nowadays, stallholders charge me at least 50 cents for the milk.
A whole chicken purchased from the wet market used to include chicken fat, which is a key ingredient in chicken rice recipes. Now, I see packs of chicken fat for sale, priced at a dollar or two.
Even when it comes to groceries, shrinkflation is a common practice by companies as a way of managing profit margins by adjusting the weight and volume of products sold while maintaining the same selling price.

A branded chocolate bar which used to weigh 200g could now be 180g, yet the selling price remains the same.

I welcome measures such as the Assurance Package and GST (goods and services tax) Voucher scheme to target the rising cost of living. However, I hope the authorities will consider the impact of shrinkflation in people’s daily spending, which may not be accounted for fully in the official inflation figures.

Foo Sing Kheng

 

[ODACHEK]

I suggest all the ministers' and experts' credit cards all change to stainless steel instead of plastic more satki.

 

[batman1]

Talk bombastic language like very complex topic but actually talking rubbish.Just to confuse and deceive the people.

 

[LITTLEREDDOT]

Quotes:
“The habit of bagging waste, particularly wet waste, before disposal, is deeply ingrained,” said senior economist at Research for Impact Oliver Yuen
Prof Maniates agreed, saying studies in other countries showed that how the public disposes of rubbish was not affected by a plastic bag charge.

Bagging waste is deeply ingrained!?
The above is clearly trying to psych Sinkies into continuing to bag their rubbish.
Tell that to the heartlanders ah peks and ah mas.
Why is it then that:
Not littering is not deeply ingrained?
Not spitting is not deeply ingrained?
Not keeping toilets clean is not deeply ingrained?
Wearing a mask (during COVID) is not deeply ingrained?
Not clearing tray is not deeply ingrained?

5 cents each: Drop in plastic bag use likely, but people will still bag their rubbish​

Large supermarkets are required to charge at least five cents for a plastic bag, as part of efforts to reduce packaging waste, since July 3. ST PHOTO: SHINTARO TAY
Lynda Hong
Senior Environment Correspondent

July 17, 2023

SINGAPORE – The use of disposable plastic bags will fall now that major supermarkets are charging at least five cents for each bag, according to experts, but people will continue to bag rubbish to throw down the chute.
Since July 3, large supermarkets are required to charge at least five cents for a plastic bag under the Resource Sustainability Act as part of national efforts to reduce packaging waste. Similar schemes in Hong Kong, Taiwan and Britain have seen the use of plastic bags drop by between 60 per cent and 90 per cent.
Professor of Social Science (Environmental Studies) Michael Maniates at Yale-NUS College expects a similar fall in Singapore. “Evidence suggests that people are deeply price-sensitive to plastic bag charges, in part because a good that was once free is now coming with a fee attached. Even a small charge in some instances, like in Washington, DC, has led to outsized behavioural change,” he said.
Since the US capital started charging for single-use plastic in 2010, the number of plastic bags found in the Anacostia River dropped by 70 per cent.
But the practice of bagging rubbish before disposing of it will likely continue, as free plastic bags are still being given out by other sellers. In the lead-up to the bag charge, the National Environment Agency (NEA) suggested repurposing plastic bags used for online deliveries or packaged food like bread.
“The habit of bagging waste, particularly wet waste, before disposal, is deeply ingrained,” said senior economist at Research for Impact Oliver Yuen. “Plastic bags are not prohibitively expensive for the majority and are still given by certain vendors such as hawkers.”
Prof Maniates agreed, saying studies in other countries showed that how the public disposes of rubbish was not affected by a plastic bag charge. “And that includes those countries without a strong norm against such behaviour (throwing unbagged waste), as we see in Singapore.”

While a charge will help reduce the excessive use of plastic bags, it may not be enough to raise environmental awareness among the public.
Assistant Professor Yan Jubo, who teaches economics at the School of Social Sciences at the Nanyang Technological University, said: “Charging for plastic bags will raise awareness, but based on my own observation in other countries, like China’s plastic bag ban, for instance, the spillover effect is quite limited.”
Green groups such as Zero Waste SG and Plastic-Lite SG have launched initiatives to encourage Singaporeans to use reusable bags when shopping for groceries.

Associate Professor Jia Lile from the Department of Psychology at the National University of Singapore (NUS) said: “Not using plastic bags alone wouldn’t raise environmental awareness. But when people start replacing plastic bags with reusable bags, the increased visibility of reusable bags should gradually create a social norm to go green.”
The challenge is to get people to understand why it is important to protect the environment, instead of just pushing them to use fewer plastic bags by making them more expensive. “Behaviours are more enduring and self-sustaining when driven by intrinsic motivation,” said Mr Yuen.

Associate Professor of Marketing Hannah Chang from the Singapore Management University said: “Plastic bag surcharges are typically symbolic and serve as a highly visible, continuous reminder to consumers.”
NEA strongly encourages supermarket operators to use proceeds from the bag charge for social or environmental causes, and Associate Professor Seck Tan from the Singapore Institute of Technology suggested focusing on the latter.
He said: “Bag charges collected can close the loop by funding the maintenance and protection of carbon sinks such as the ocean or the forest.”

Cutting the use of plastic bags may not decrease carbon emissions as Singapore generates electricity by burning solid waste, including plastic bags.
Professor Rajasekhar Balasubramanian from the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at NUS College of Design and Engineering said: “The commonly used plastic bags are polyethylene (PE) bags which have multiple units of the molecule of ethylene, so burning PE bags is like burning oil which contains hydrocarbons.”
Associate Professor Zhou Kang from the Food, Chemical and Biotechnology Cluster at the Singapore Institute of Technology added: “When fewer plastic bags are incinerated, the energy gap needs to be closed by other means, such as burning natural gas, which would also release carbon dioxide.”
Still, newer technologies are increasing the efficiency of incineration, cutting carbon emissions. In its latest 2021/2022 integrated sustainability report, NEA reported that direct carbon emissions from burning dropped by 20 per cent compared with the previous year.
NEA attributed the fall to scaling down the use of the Tuas Incineration Plant, which was eventually decommissioned.
The more efficient TuasOne plant, with a daily capacity to incinerate 3,600 tonnes of waste and generate 120MW of electricity, has been operational since December 2021.

How else to bag rubbish​

With plastic bags now costing five cents each at supermarkets in a move to go green, locals are concerned they would not have enough plastic carriers to bag their rubbish at home.
The Straits Times spoke to green advocates for some best practices in waste management.

Use newspapers or paper bags​

When collecting wet or organic waste, newspapers or paper bags can be used to line garbage cans. “These materials effectively absorb moisture and help control odours,” said a spokesman for the Singapore Environment Council. Avoid glossy or coated papers, as they may not degrade properly.

Use secondary packaging​

A Zero Waste SG spokesman said “there are still other plastic bags, which people may have on hand that can be used”, such as produce bags and food packaging.

Sort out rubbish​

By sorting waste into categories like dry, wet, recyclables, and biodegradable, other types of plastics can be used for waste disposal. Zero Waste SG said “wet waste usually needs to be bagged but is of a smaller volume that would be able to fit into smaller and more types of bags”.

Compost biodegradable waste​

Any biodegradable waste can be repurposed through composting at home to be used as fertiliser in your personal or community garden. Avoid adding milk to your compost. Teacher and Plastic-Lite Singapore volunteer Padmarani Srivatsan said: “NParks can use the compost for the gardens we have around Singapore, or the people composting (waste) can use it for their own purpose.”

• Additional reporting by Anne Chan Min and Sophia-Ines Klein

 

[realDonaldTrump]

Rideout is another example that no politician is punished for lying and people are punished for telling the truth.

 

[laksaboy]

The habit of bagging waste, particularly wet waste, before disposal, is deeply ingrained,” said senior economist at Research for Impact Oliver Yuen
Prof Maniates agreed, saying studies in other countries showed that how the public disposes of rubbish was not affected by a plastic bag charge.

Looks like the anti-carbon globalist cult has infiltrated academia too.

https://www.rforimpact.com/

Research For Impact (RFI) is a Singapore-based think-tank dedicated to making the behavioural and social sciences accessible, inclusive, and transformative for all.

https://www.rforimpact.com/publications

White Paper: Towards Equity Among Young Learners in Singapore

Tell-tale signs, those words highlighted in bold.

 

[LITTLEREDDOT]

Insead’s associate professor of entrepreneurship and family enterprise Jason Davis believes that “these job cuts may be a sign of adaptability and strength, not weakness”.

This guy Jason Davis is better than Lau Goh.
Lau Goh said: "if there is no recession, I worry."
This Jason Davis said: "retrenchment is a sign of adaptability and strength, not weakness."

Is the tech boom tapering off?​

This regular column addresses readers’ investing issues.​

Lazada, a unit of New York Stock Exchange-listed Alibaba, announced plans to reduce its headcount. ST PHOTO: ONG WEE JIN

Lee Su Shyan
Associate Editor & Senior Columnist

JAN 21, 2024

Q: Some of the big tech firms, like Google, are cutting jobs. Can the tech boom continue into 2024?​

Earlier in January 2024, Lazada, a unit of New York Stock Exchange-listed Alibaba, announced plans to reduce its headcount. The e-commerce arm Lazada operates in countries across South-east Asia, including Singapore, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Thailand and Vietnam. The layoffs affected all functions, reports said. A CNBC report had put the cuts in the region of hundreds.
Subsequently, Google also announced job cuts. These were in areas such as the hardware and central engineering teams, as well as Google Assistant. Some estimates put the number affected at 1,000, with more layoffs expected this year.
So is this a signal that these tech firms are in trouble? Analysts reckon it is more to do with strategy and re-organisation than a lack of growth prospects.
Insead’s associate professor of entrepreneurship and family enterprise Jason Davis believes that “these job cuts may be a sign of adaptability and strength, not weakness”. He says tech firms are highly successful and dynamic organisations that need to adjust the workforce occasionally to capture opportunities.
One factor is that these companies ramped up hiring dramatically during the Covid-19 pandemic, often in remote-focused roles, and they have been readjusting back towards a balance in the number of in-person workers since the pandemic ended.
Another factor is that companies are facing a massive technological revolution in the next five years around artificial intelligence (AI) and, to capture that opportunity, many of them will need to focus headcount on those with AI expertise.
Mr Li Jianggan, founder and CEO of Momentum Works, a venture capital firm, says the job cuts are driven more by organisational needs than profitability concerns, noting for example that Google is still profitable and Alibaba is continuing its investment to grow Lazada.


“Changes in the competitive landscape and potential disruption by AI would force company decision-makers to institute some changes to make their organisations more nimble and adaptable,” he adds.
DBS Bank’s chief investment officer Hou Wey Fook says: “There were similar concerns that the tech boom was over in 2022 and 2023 due to the relentless series of rate hikes from the (Federal Reserve) and other central banks – worries of dampened end demand and potential liquidity issues due to tightening monetary conditions shook investor confidence.
“Many of the Big Tech companies were relatively unaffected by elevated rates due to their low dependence on leverage and net cash positions, while end-demand remained resilient.”

Still, Mr Hou sounds a note of caution as he adds that the resilience and positive outperformance are not broad-based. While the profitable large-cap names such as Microsoft and Google, or what the markets coined the “Magnificent Seven”, enjoyed a stellar run, smaller-cap or unprofitable technology stocks struggled.
DBS remains positive on US tech but says that it favours sector leaders and quality stocks.
AI is something that all tech firms are trying to get a handle on.
Momentum’s Mr Li says: “A bigger and probably more fundamental challenge is the potential disruption of AI. The Alibaba Group CEO mentioned ‘AI’ 48 times in the last earnings call, ‘GMV’ only eight times... tech firms know that if they make a misstep, they can be very quickly left behind in competition, hence they can’t afford to be missing out in the AI race.”
(GMV stands for gross merchandise value and refers to the total value of merchandise sold over a given period of time through a site.)

Areas of growth​

Analysts are confident that AI growth will continue.
DBS’ Mr Hou says other areas of growth include tech-related verticals, such as cloud computing, cyber security, e-sports, integrated circuits, power management, smart devices, software and wearable devices.
Another possibility is from mergers and acquisitions. As many of the Big Tech firms have cash, they can make acquisitions and build their innovation and technology pipelines, he adds.
Insead’s Professor Davis looks towards the long term, arguing that “technology, innovation and growth will be even more concentrated in the US in the decades ahead”.
He adds: “It is just incredibly difficult to sustain the level of dynamism, domestic and foreign talent, minimal to moderate regulation, and funding that is possible in the US.”
He suggests that Europe and China could see less technology-led growth and innovation due to geopolitical difficulties. “Singapore and South-east Asia technology companies like Sea, Grab and GoTo may be bright spots, but they may find their growth prospects limited if the geopolitical winds or global liquidity flows turn against them.”

He expects the entire US stock market, with indexes such as the S&P500 and Nasdaq, to do well in the next few years.
But Prof Davis also urges investors to be selective.
“Focus investment on those few companies that are best able to capture the AI and crypto opportunities, since returns are likely to diverge and really excel for the few outsized winners,” he concludes.

Bottom line​

When looking at specific tech stocks, Phillip Securities Research’s senior research analyst Jonathan Woo suggests several factors to consider.

• First, how deep is the company’s moat? That is, are there high barriers to entry for new entrants?
• Second, investors should consider if cash flows are strong or growing.
• Third, what is the level of operating leverage?
• Fourth, there should be opportunities for future expansion into new markets/verticals.

Tech firms, by and large, are still a good bet with many growth areas. Competition is intense and many will have to spend and invest large sums in that next phase of growth. How they employ AI in their business will also be a challenge and make this space an interesting one to watch.

 

[LITTLEREDDOT]

Bertha Henson critiques use of ‘experts’ and ‘observers’ in shaping news narratives​

Bertha Henson questions the roles of ‘experts’ and ‘observers’ in Singapore’s mainstream media interviews. Her post reflects concerns about the reporting style of the city state medias which often emphasizes positivity in coverage of potentially negative issues.


Published on 25 January 2024
By Yee Loon

Bertha Henson, former Associate Editor of the Straits Times (ST), recently shared her insights on media literacy in a Facebook post, raising thought-provoking questions about so-called ‘experts’ and ‘observers’ interviewed by mainstream media.
She emphasized the need for journalists to substantiate the credentials of individuals labelled as experts or analysts and expressed scepticism when self-proclaimed “experts” refuse to be named and account for their views.
Furthermore, she observed a peculiar phenomenon in Singapore where individuals expressing controversial views are considered ‘brave’ when fully named in the media.

“Experts,” “analysts,” and “observers” in MSMs’ headlines​

Ms. Henson, who aims to enhance media literacy, consistently shares her thoughts on fundamental journalism principles.
In her latest post, she questioned the criteria for being labelled an ‘expert’ and the proximity required to be considered an ‘observer.
“Unlike ‘sources’ who leak news, they give views, which are supposedly weightier than those of the hoi polloi because of their expertise or constant monitoring of a specific domain. ”
“Just see them as catchall terms, a shorthand for saying ‘these people are worth listening to’. ”
Ms. Henson stressed that journalists bear the responsibility of showcasing the worthiness of these individuals through full names, designations, or years of experience.

However, the challenge arises when interviewees decline to be named. She questioned the credibility of experts who are unwilling to account for their views.
“I have always thought an expert can’t be very expert if he can’t or won’t account for his views. And that analysts whose comments are more anal than analytical should go back to whichever school they came from. ”
She also discussed the role of political observers and questioned “how closely should they be observing” and suggested that the term is often used for those with a study of politics, in politics, or former politicians.
She recalled that during her time in ST, she always told reporters to expand their pool of contacts to avoid predictability and staleness in views. This involves finding new political observers willing to be named.
“As for another popular term, ‘industry’ observers who are unnamed, I wouldn’t give their views much credit. It strikes me that it must be a very small industry if reporters cannot find someone who will be named.”
She added that these general descriptions of unnamed people are judgment calls made by journalists and work only if readers believe that the journalist has done the due diligence on the level of expertise and experience.
“In Singapore, I doubt readers ask many questions like whether the unnamed analyst is talking up something that is in his personal or corporate interest.” She also questioned whether readers consider if experts decline to be named due to fear of criticism from fellow experts.
Ms Henson also highlighted the tendency to label someone as ‘brave’ when they express controversial views and are named fully on MSMs.

ST’s use of ‘observer’ views to shift negative narratives​

Ms Henson’s recent post appears to be prompted by the reporting style of the Singapore state media the ST, which tends to accentuate positive aspects even when exploring potentially negative issues.
For instance, she shared a screenshot of The ST’s coverage of the recent court charges against former PAP Minister Iswaran last Thursday (18 January).
Despite the PAP being embroiled in another scandal, the article prominently featured “observers” expressing the opinion that public trust could be restored.


Simultaneously, in another piece covering the Ministry of Transport and LTA’s U-turn on the original transition plan to SimplyGo due to severe public backlash, The ST again highlighted the opinions of “observers.”
Ms Henson pointed out the peculiar situation where criticisms are not adequately reported in the media, but when there is a change, suddenly people express their wisdom, saying, “Ya lah,” and so forth.