Mean is the average of a set of numbers.

Let’s do some Math 101 here:

Here’s a list of 10 numbers arranged in descending order (ie, from largest to smallest):

900 859 801 735 699 550 450 380 200 199

The MEAN (Average) is: (900+859+801+735+699+550+450+380+200+199)/10 = 5773/10 = 577.3

The MEDIAN is defined as the number IN THE MIDDLE of the sequence of numbers above.

Since the sequence is even (10 numbers), the MEDIAN then is the number between the 5th and 6th which we will find by: (699+550)/2 = 1309/2 = 624.5

Because we were given an EVEN set of numbers the MEDIAN is the average of the two numbers in the middle. If, however, we were given say ODD set of numbers, the MEDIAN would be the number in the middle of the sequence.

You will notice that the value of MEAN (Average) is not necessarily the same as the value of MEDIAN but it is possible that the MEDIAN could be higher or lower than the MEAN.

The salary report suggests that the ministerial salaries be pegged at the “median of the top 1000 Singaporean wage earners”.

So, while the number 1000 seems like a lot, the reality is that the salary is being proposed to be pegged to the AVERAGE of the 500th and 501th top Singaporean wage earner. The number 1000 is a red herring, serving to confuse people who would have understood MEAN not MEDIAN.

The report is trying to ensure that not too many Singaporeans earn more than the ministers.or to put it another way, there would only be about 500 Singaporeans or so who could be earning more than the ministers. This is very self-serving.

Which then begs the question. Why 500? Why not 5000? Or even 50,000? Are the ministers only working for the top 500? Not the 5,000,000+ we have in Singapore?

Watch this video of  DPM Teo speaking in the parliament on January 16th 2012. Quite sad really.

“Saw has left the building. I repeat, Saw has left the building”.

In many ways, this was to happen; it was just a matter of time. All the times when there were service issues with the SMRT, it was the Transport Minister Liu that was front and center answering questions etc.  One could be forgiven if that left the impression that Minister Liu was the person in-charge of the SMRT and that there was no other accountable employee. Alas, there always was a CEO, but no one Saw her anywhere. So Minister Liu had to be the talking-head.

I thought the SMRT was a commercially run entity and a private company at that. This was the statement made by the Law minister himself.

Is the Law Minister wrong? If he is wrong, then I can understand why the Transport Minister was answering SMRT’s issues. But I think the real answer lies elsewhere.

Parts of the train infrastructure is owned by the LTA. The business of running the trains is owned by the SMRT. So, when there is an issue, whose problem is it? Perhaps both the ministers are right in their assessments.

I did my reservist duties in the SCDF. I was the company commander of the Newton MRT Station Bomb Shelter. Our SOP in converting the station into a bomb shelter includes the use of the two tracks on which the 6-carriage trains will be parked and with airflow and power fed in from the station itself. The ends of the tracks past the ends of the trains have blast doors that will be deployed to secure the whole station as a bomb shelter. In all of the shelter exercises I was involved, we never closed the doors on the tracks because the doors were mis-aligned and if we forced it to close, we might not be able to open it and trains cannot resume service after our exercise.

While it is very unlikely that Singapore will ever see a need to actually use the bomb shelters for their intended purposes, the fact that we cannot secure the Newton MRT station is a problem. I was told was the there is no clear agreement between SMRT, LTA and the SCDF as to who will bear the costs of doing repairs to align the doors. I have one caveat here: this info is probably outdated. My last ICT with the SCDF was back in mid-2005 or so, when I handed over the command to my successor. Hence it is possible that the doors have been repaired.

My intention in bringing up the issue of the blast doors has to do with who ultimately owns and is accountable for the entire mass rapid transit system.  From all the finger pointing we’ve seen so far, it appears that no one really knows, not even the Cabinet.

But, after reading their report released today, I am pleasantly surprised to see a good amount of thinking, analysis, and consideration of feedback has been taken on board.

I think the key points of being transparent about the salaries and the removal of pensions is the biggest change. Arguments about the quantum of salary will always be there as will people who disagree no matter that number is proposed.  What I like about how the committee framed their thinking centered on:

When determining Ministerial Salaries, we kept these principles in mind:

1) Salaries must be competitive so that people of the right calibre are not deterred from stepping forward to lead the country;
2) The ethos of political service entails making sacrifices and hence there should be a discount in the pay formula; and
3) There should be a “clean wage” with no hidden perks.

One of the hallmarks of Singapore is that the political and administrative service are by and large corruption free.  Having said that, the cynics amongst us, including me, have contended that it was achieved by the excessive salaries paid to the political leadership.

Let’s see if this reality adjustment of the political salaries will have any impact on the perceived corruption free status.  I suspect that there will not be any change in that.  Singapore’s ethos has been built on getting things done for the benefit of as large a group of people as possible leaving no one behind.

So, all in, I am happy with the report. I accept the report. I hope my fellow citizens will accept it as well – but only after you’ve read the report and not an executive summary or someone else’s opinion piece for pundits are a dime-a-dozen.

2012 is beginning to look like a really nice new year already!

Majulah Singapura.

UPDATE – January 5 2011:

I think that there has not been enough analysis of the salary inflation of the ministers over the years. The last salary jump, and boy was that a big jump (of almost 60% in one go – see this NYT article), means that the proposed 20-50% reduction is still not going to make it anything like what it was BEFORE 2007. Sneaky!

The report does not seem to have taken into consideration the meteoric rise of the salary over the years. What the report is focussed on is on what wage would best attract people into politics in Singapore given our constraints. Perhaps in real 2012 dollars, the quantum to be derived from the median of salaries of the top 1000 Singapore citizens wage-earners (ie, 60% of the average of the sum of the 500th and 501th taxpayer), might be a fair amount.

Let the people decide. This is, I believe, still a functioning democracy.

I do not yet have a position per se and do welcome comments on this blog. I will be happy to submit a consolidated feedback.

Next thing I want to see happen is the Freedom of Information Act being enacted.  I am sure when the parliament sits later this month, the Worker’s Party will bring that up since it was one of their key points in their election manifesto.

“@climagic youtube-dl -q -o- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zscrs94_pFc | mplayer – cache 1000 - # Watch youtube streaming directly to mplayer”

So, do yum install youtube-dl mplayer on your Fedora machines, then you can pull in youtube videos with the youtube-dl command and then pipe it (the “|”) to the video player, mplayer and watch it immediately. No need for a browser and this is really cool.

Naturally, if all you wanted was to download the youtube video and keep a copy, just use youtube-dl [URL].

You can replace mplayer with vlc as well so the one above would look like this:

youtube-dl -q -o- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zscrs94_pFc | vlc

The President of the Republic Of Singapore is 95% ceremonial and 5% custodial. Does it matter who then the president is? Does it really matter that for the 5%, the person has to have managed S$100 million dollar businesses etc? Does it matter that the president knows exactly how much Singapore has in its reserves? Would knowing that figure make a difference? Don’t we all make daily decisions on spending and have in our minds the checks and balances constantly running? Will it not be the case with governmental spending?

The former prime minister, Lee Kuan Yew, felt that it was important that the president be someone who can be a “keeper of the second key” in releasing funds from the reserves. LKY, given the absolute power his party had (and has) in parliament, pushed through the changes in the constitution to cater for an elected president with the explicit mandate (some say moral authority) to reject or approve reserve-releasing requests.

The citizens do not know how and when the government of the day requests for funds to be drawn down and for the president to agree. We hear that the unelected elected 6th president, S. R. Nathan (unelected, because he got into office unopposed because of the abomination called walkovers) approved 27 draw downs during his tenure. Did we know of these? Shouldn’t the system be transparent? Shouldn’t the Accountant General or the Ministry of Finance disclose this? Correct me if I am wrong about not knowing the many instances President Nathan agreed to release the monies.

So, if all the elected president’s moral authority by virtue of being elected by the people rests in the 5% of his role, what should matter is the 95% of his office. The president is the head of state. He represents the unifying, agreeable, approachable, almost fatherly figure for the nation.

The president represents the country to the world and is the holder of the highest office of the land. He has to be above all, accommodating of all views and be a great influencer to sooth coarse and sharp issues. He should reach out to all Singaporeans (whether in country or outside) to come to the rally call of Singapore.

As the US Naval officer of the 18th/19th century, Stephen Decatur said: “Our Country! In her intercourse with foreign nations may she always be in the right; but right or wrong, our country!” Or to put in another way, “my country, right or wrong, warts and all”.

So, likewise, the president. I recall on my enlistment day, over thirty years ago, I pledged allegiance to the President of the Republic of Singapore. When my sons enlist, they too would be pledging allegiance to the President. That means, I cannot afford to have a president who I cannot be proud of. I cannot have a president who comes across as uncouth, boorish, know-it-all and unwilling (or seemingly unwilling) to compromise.

I watched the televised statements from the four candidates last night. As I have indicated over the last seven or so days, I have been increasingly leaning towards Tan Jee Say over Tan Cheng Bock. But this last broadcast has caused me to change my mind. I am particularly thrilled to hear Tan Cheng Bock mention his wife as being part of his team and that should he become president, she will be a wonderful first lady. As my wife later noted to me, the fact that only Tan Cheng Bock acknowledged his wife and praised her was reason enough for my wife to vote for Tan Cheng Bock. Suffice to say, that gesture has also affirmed my vote for Tan Cheng Bock.

So, in about 10 hours or so, I will be casting my vote for the Seventh President of Republic of Singapore.

And the vote will be for Dr Tan Cheng Bock, President of the Republic of Singapore. And to President S. R. Nathan, thank you for your service.

Majulah Singapura.

The President Tan that will emerge early morning of August 28 will NOT be a Tony. Why in spite of all the “endorsements” from various trade unions and associations? Because none of them are endorsing him with the approval of their constituent membership.  It is the leaders of those entities that are doing it – at the behest of the NTUC Secretary General, a PAP minister himself.

While I am surprised that the newspaper group who Tony presided over as their chairman has yet to endorse him, it might just be done before polling day. Even that won’t help him to win.

Let’s look at some of the statistics of voting patterns.  GE2011 showed 40% voting for a non-PAP candidate. One GRC was wrested from the PAP. So, going into this PE, Tony can be assured of NOT GETTING that 40%. By all reckoning, there probably is a 25%-30% dyed-in-wool PAP supporters who could possibly split votes between Tony and Cheng Bock.

I would assume that those who are in Ayer Rajah constituency (now part of the West Coast GRC) who had consistently returned Cheng Bock to office would be voting for him.

From all accounts, Tony’s stint in the Sembawang GRC as an MP was not a happy one in that he would delegate his Meet-The-People sessions to his GRC-mates which means that Tony does not have the support there.

Then add the White Horse factor of Tony’s son, Patrick. Tony has not come clean (nor has his son) about how Patrick was able to get an extended disruption from NS and dubious postings to the Defense Medical and Environment Research Institute and National Cancer Center, especially during the time Tony was defense minister. Do you think that if Tony gets the presidency, Patrick would be able to show his face and not be asked about how he was able to dodge NS? Tony is not going to his son any favours by continuing to brush aside the allegations.

So, that leaves Jee Say, Cheng Bock and Kin Lian.

About Kin Lian: I think he is a smart and possibly likeable person. Yes, he did spend some years as a PAP cadre member, but I think that is all in the past and of no consequence. Kin Lian has proven his business acumen at NTUC Income. I know that there are many people in the insurance industry that have nothing but cuss words for him, but looking at someone who grew a business – even if a cooperative – it is no small task. I think his ideas of forming his own council of advisers is very laudable.  I think there is a real need to institute an ombudsman system in our political landscape and perhaps his council of advisers could be an arm of it, or may be not.

Jee Say is an enigma. He has good ideas and is forthright in stating it. He does, sometimes, come across as a bit boorish and unpolished. Perhaps the fire from the GE2011 is still burning in him. I particularly like his stand against capital punishment. That to me is reason enough to vote for him. He clearly is capable of being a good president.

Cheng Bock. Of the two Drs, Cheng Bock is probably the more likeable and down-to-earth bloke. He has a mind of his own proven over the years by being a PAP MP and poking the government every now and then. I am disappointed that he, as a medical doctor, is in favour of capital punishment but perhaps he can be persuaded. Watch these videos.

If I were to arrange the four Tans on a political scale with PAP on the left and Anti-PAP on the right as the two extremes, it would be Tony, Cheng Bock, Kin Lian and Jee Say.

The People of Singapore want a change. The status quo of the last 46 years has been great to bring the country to where it is today, but not what is needed for the future.  Tony’s tagline “Confidence for the future” fails on that count.  It is more of the same and nothing else.

So here is how I think the votes will spread:

Tony 18%

Cheng Bock 30%

Kin Lian 23%

Jee Say 29%

So, it will be a neck to neck between Cheng Bock and Jee Say. The PAP-led government will have their hands full some early morning August 28.

***

I had an interesting chat with a friend today. He is well connected with the establishment and what amazes me is how much he “believes in the establishment’s bullshit”. I recall a good boss of mine from years ago telling me that he would be very worried if his sales folks and engineers start believing everything marketing spins – “believing your own bullshit”.  The PAP still does not understand the reality of the ground, three months after the GE. They still think that it is BAU and believing their own bullshit.

The ground has moved and moved away from the PAP. Anyone who is as closely associated with the PAP as is Tony stands to lose. It used to be a time when anything the PAP anoints wins. That is no longer the case. Someone told me that the PAP is now the “Pariah Action Party”.

***

So who am I voting for on Saturday? I told my Mom to vote Cheng Bock and to tell her friends to do the same. I am still sitting on the fence between Cheng Bock and Jee Say.  I want a president I can be proud of both from a office as well as the person. I respect the office of the Prime Minister but I don’t like the person holding that post. I want to have a president that I can like. If I were to use likability as the only factor, Cheng Bock will be it.

The fact that we’ve been able to have 46 years of economic progress going from a relatively impoverished island of about 1.5 million people in 1965 to one with about 5.5 million today with a per capita one of the highest in the world is no easy achievement. Much kudos have to be given to the pioneering group of political leaders and their vision to make this a viable nation and to be able to rally the population to make the effort to pull in the same direction.

As a nation, we will forever be grateful to that generation – the generation of my parents. They did well and thank you.

And, as a nation, we have to move forward. We have to find the new normal. The new normal was established on May 7, 2011 when the population took charge of the collective destiny. The citizenry had cast off the yoke of fear of not voting for the political party that ruled Singapore since independence. It was a breath of fresh air and a newly found confidence in being able to do the right thing.  Much kudos have to be given to the many players – the various political parties, the social media and the general assertiveness of a well education and well-informed citizenry.

Now as we observe the 46th anniversary of our independence, it is time to reflect what does it mean to be a Singaporean. Like any other nation and nationality, we have our quirks and warts and shortcomings. But, they are ours. We will work around it, live with it, and make it ours.

One thing that cannot be taken away from us – we are who we are because we chose to be that. We will never be perfect. But we will try hard to make it happen.

We demand full and honest transparency in how this country is governed and how we will pull together both in times of hardship and prosperity.

This National Day will mark the last time President S R Nathan will be officiating as the head of state. His term in office ends on August 31st. We will be having the presidential elections on August 27th that would see a new person in office.

The Singapore President was always a figure-head who officiated at events and was a rallying point for the people.  The party in power devised a clever scheme to have the president elected so that he will have the moral authority to safeguard the substantial financial reserves that Singapore has built up over the years.  This move, while controversial, did not set up the presidency to have the far-reaching roles it could play, except to keep the ruling party happy.

On August 17th 2011, we will know who will be contesting the elections and there is a danger of a freak situation where miraculously only one person was deemed qualified. Such is the system we have that it will be a crying shame if it turns out that way. The current president was NEVER voted into office, having had the seat obtained by default because no one ran against him. This should never be allowed, whether in parliamentary or presidential elections. There must be a minimum percentage of votes in favour before being granted the office.Walkovers are an abomination of human rights and the administrative capitulation of constitutional right to vote.

So, I look forward to National Day 2011, humbled that we have been able to make what we have and contented that we have a new normal.

As Singaporeans, we can be proud to take the Pledge and sing the anthem with all our heart.

Majulah Singapura.

It has been many years since I was in Portland – in fact, the times I spent in Portland was when I was in school in OSU in the latter half of 1980s. Most times, I will drive up from Corvallis on a Saturday morning, go to Powell’s and spend the whole time there. I did do some hiking around the area, but it was Powell’s for me.

So, it is somewhat of a de ja vu and yet new.

I have signed up for the sessions on Tuesday/Wednesday/Thursday and will also be supporting the Fedora team who has a booth as well as the Open Source for America.

Tuesday’s sessions show a few HTML5 talks.  Looks like HTML5 is indeed the next new shiny thing. May be not. But it is nice to be in a techie session and actually do some coding – it is always a good adrenalin rush for me. Coding and hacking has always been.

Here’s the site the speaker Remy Sharp is using for his talk “Is HTML5 Ready for Production” – jsbin.com,  html5demos.com, pusher.com and responsivepx.com/. Cool stuff – he is now showing WebSockets as well. Awesome. WebSocket servers have to be node.js machines for superfast connections.

Much the same thing happens with teams of people.  In the True Spirit of The Open Source Way, people in teams will see individuals come in, contribute, leave. Sometimes, they return. Sometimes, they contribute from afar.

Change has come to Red Hat’s Community Architecture and Leadership (CommArch) team.  Max has written about his decision to move on from Red Hat, and Red Hat has asked me to take on the leadership of the group.  We have all (Max, myself, Jared, Robyn, and the entire CommArch team) been working hard over the past few weeks to make sure that transition is smooth, in particular as it relates to the Fedora Project.

I have been with Red Hat, working out of the Asia Pacific headquarters based in Singapore, for the last 8 years or so. I have had the good fortune to be able to work in very different areas of the business and it continues to be exciting, thrilling and fulfilling.

The business ethics and model of Red Hat resonates very much with me. Red Hat harvests from the open source commons and makes it available as enterprise quality software that organizations, business big and small can run confidently and reliably. That entire value chain is a two way chain, in that the work Red Hat does to make open source enterprise deployable, gets funnelled back to the open source commons to benefit everyone. This process ensures that the Tragedy of the Commons is avoided.

This need to Do The Right Thing was one of the tenets behind the establishment of the Community Architecture and Leadership team within Red Hat. Since its inception, I have had been an honorary member of the team, complementing its core group.  About a year ago, I moved from honorary member to being a full-timer in the group.

The team’s charter is to ensure that the practises and learnings that have helped Red Hat to harness open source for the enterprise continues to be refined and reinforced within Red Hat.  The team has always focused on Fedora in this regard, and will continue to do so. We’ve been lucky to have team members who have had leadership positions within different parts of the Fedora Project over the years, and this has given us an opportunity to sharpen and hone what it means to run, maintain, manage, and nurture a community.

The group also drives educational activities through the Teaching Open Source (TOS) community, such as the amazingly useful and strategic “Professors Open Source Summer Experience” (POSSE) event.  If the ideas of open source collaboration and the creation of open source software is to continue and flourish, we have to reach out to the next generation of developers who are in schools around the world. To do that, if faculty members can be shown the tools for open source collaboration, the knock-on effect of students picking it up and adopting is much higher. That can only be a good thing for the global
open source movement.

This opportunity for me to lead CommArch does mean that, with the team, I can help drive a wider and more embracing scope of work that also includes the JBoss.org community and the newly forming Cloud-related communities.

The work ahead is exciting and has enormous knock-on effects within Red Hat as well as the wider IT industry.  Red Hat’s mission statement states: “To be the catalyst in communities of customers, contributors, and partners creating better technology the open source way.”

In many ways, CommArch is one of the catalysts. I intend to keep it that way.