-
IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here. The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.
Chitchat Why Jamus Lim join Workers' Party ?
- Thread starter batman1
- Start date
Jamus had a discussion that revolved around a blend of educational insights and individual values. 
Some time back, I sat down with Jason Ho of Strengths School, who runs the Coach Jason Ho Podcast. What was most fascinating (for me) about the discussion was that it revolved around a blend of educational insights and individual values, and how these come together when one pursues a passion and a career. I won’t pretend to have any answers, but I believe that our talk allowed me to share my views on the key elements of my own journey, and how these shaped the way I think about the purpose behind what we do.
Heaps of thanks to Jason, Denisha, and the rest of the team for accommodating both a fairly uncompromising schedule on my part, and my tardy response time to requests for input. You may watch the entire thing here:
YOUTUBE.COM
Becoming an Economics Professor - Jamus Lim | The CJH Podcast EP22
Jamus Lim
1 d ·Some time back, I sat down with Jason Ho of Strengths School, who runs the Coach Jason Ho Podcast. What was most fascinating (for me) about the discussion was that it revolved around a blend of educational insights and individual values, and how these come together when one pursues a passion and a career. I won’t pretend to have any answers, but I believe that our talk allowed me to share my views on the key elements of my own journey, and how these shaped the way I think about the purpose behind what we do.
Heaps of thanks to Jason, Denisha, and the rest of the team for accommodating both a fairly uncompromising schedule on my part, and my tardy response time to requests for input. You may watch the entire thing here:
YOUTUBE.COM
Becoming an Economics Professor - Jamus Lim | The CJH Podcast EP22
Jamus wants losses and responsibility to be shared. 
Parliament recently debated a motion on improving online security. The #workersparty contributed to the discussion by stressing the importance of getting this right, given the growing crisis of confidence in digital systems. On my part, I spoke about the current state of online fraud and scams. The government had recently released a paper on the Shared Responsibility Framework (SRF), for apportioning liability for losses incurred. For me, the major issue with the SRF, as it currently stands, is that it absolves financial institutions and telecommunications providers from losses, so long as they have done their part in taking precautions to prevent such scams.
But as anyone who deals with strategy knows, attacks always go for the weakest link in the chain. These are often individuals. To make matters worse, these are also the ones least prepared to guard against sophisticated fraudsters, compared to institutions. Moreover, the SRF only sets guidelines for responsibilities, rather than outcomes. Sometimes, accidents happen, even with the most careful exercise of cyber hygiene. You may be tired, or the spoof may be very believable, or the trickster especially convincing. In practice, what this almost certainly means is that customers will bear the brunt of losses, as long as corporations can show that they’ve implemented the latest security features and tools. Once losses occur, cost sharing is almost never fair.
So how do we get to a situation where losses—not just responsibilities—are more equitably distributed? It comes down to the need to have telcos and banks absorb some of the share. And importantly, by “share” I mean proportional to their respective abilities to bear them.
But that’s actually just the first step. What’s neat about such a solution, other than equity, is that it also spawns longer-term changes in the financial ecosystem. The most typical change of this nature is the emergence of an insurance (and reinsurance) market. Once this happens, it opens up the possibility of limiting liability (like all insurance schemes do). We could cap the exposure of customers, say, to $100 or $500 (or whatever may be actuarially sustainable).
Would this open up the risk of more careless behavior by customers? Sure, that’s the nature of all insurance. Economists even have a name for this phenomenon: moral hazard (if someone pays for the cost of an accident, you’re likely to drive more carelessly). That’s why there’s often such a thing as a co-pay (which is the $100 or $500). I don’t know about you, but if I might lose 500 bucks, I’ll do what I can to avoid it. Would I be more careful with a larger amount? Sure. But $500 is enough to make most folks very careful.
Could this embolden criminals, since there’s now a backstop that would pay out for the scams? Sure, but it’s not clear to me why the likely victims would be all that different (recall, nobody wants to be scammed, even for a small amount). And if you’re saying that crooked scammers could try to game the system by posing as unwitting customers, well, there’s such a thing as insurance fraud. Criminals may not care about this, but that’s where the ecosystem evolution argument comes in.
Companies that facilitated fraudulent purchases may care more about doing so, lest they get their electronic payments taken away. Banks would more carefully scrutinize transfer counterparties, as well as their own “mule” accounts. Blacklists would be actively consulted and refined. It is true that everyone would have to pay a little more for such insurance. But if we can get a system going at the national level, the costs are likely to be much more manageable.
We actually see such ecosystems in place already, for deposit insurance and credit card fraud, both here and in other parts of the world. Other jurisdictions, like the UK, are making even more aggressive proposals for limiting consumer liability for scams. When we are able to harness not just public sector policing efforts, but also private sector incentives, the system becomes stronger and safer for all. But it begins with a first step, of ensuring that losses, not just responsibility, is shared. #makingyourvotecount
Jamus Lim
13 h ·Parliament recently debated a motion on improving online security. The #workersparty contributed to the discussion by stressing the importance of getting this right, given the growing crisis of confidence in digital systems. On my part, I spoke about the current state of online fraud and scams. The government had recently released a paper on the Shared Responsibility Framework (SRF), for apportioning liability for losses incurred. For me, the major issue with the SRF, as it currently stands, is that it absolves financial institutions and telecommunications providers from losses, so long as they have done their part in taking precautions to prevent such scams.
But as anyone who deals with strategy knows, attacks always go for the weakest link in the chain. These are often individuals. To make matters worse, these are also the ones least prepared to guard against sophisticated fraudsters, compared to institutions. Moreover, the SRF only sets guidelines for responsibilities, rather than outcomes. Sometimes, accidents happen, even with the most careful exercise of cyber hygiene. You may be tired, or the spoof may be very believable, or the trickster especially convincing. In practice, what this almost certainly means is that customers will bear the brunt of losses, as long as corporations can show that they’ve implemented the latest security features and tools. Once losses occur, cost sharing is almost never fair.
So how do we get to a situation where losses—not just responsibilities—are more equitably distributed? It comes down to the need to have telcos and banks absorb some of the share. And importantly, by “share” I mean proportional to their respective abilities to bear them.
But that’s actually just the first step. What’s neat about such a solution, other than equity, is that it also spawns longer-term changes in the financial ecosystem. The most typical change of this nature is the emergence of an insurance (and reinsurance) market. Once this happens, it opens up the possibility of limiting liability (like all insurance schemes do). We could cap the exposure of customers, say, to $100 or $500 (or whatever may be actuarially sustainable).
Would this open up the risk of more careless behavior by customers? Sure, that’s the nature of all insurance. Economists even have a name for this phenomenon: moral hazard (if someone pays for the cost of an accident, you’re likely to drive more carelessly). That’s why there’s often such a thing as a co-pay (which is the $100 or $500). I don’t know about you, but if I might lose 500 bucks, I’ll do what I can to avoid it. Would I be more careful with a larger amount? Sure. But $500 is enough to make most folks very careful.
Could this embolden criminals, since there’s now a backstop that would pay out for the scams? Sure, but it’s not clear to me why the likely victims would be all that different (recall, nobody wants to be scammed, even for a small amount). And if you’re saying that crooked scammers could try to game the system by posing as unwitting customers, well, there’s such a thing as insurance fraud. Criminals may not care about this, but that’s where the ecosystem evolution argument comes in.
Companies that facilitated fraudulent purchases may care more about doing so, lest they get their electronic payments taken away. Banks would more carefully scrutinize transfer counterparties, as well as their own “mule” accounts. Blacklists would be actively consulted and refined. It is true that everyone would have to pay a little more for such insurance. But if we can get a system going at the national level, the costs are likely to be much more manageable.
We actually see such ecosystems in place already, for deposit insurance and credit card fraud, both here and in other parts of the world. Other jurisdictions, like the UK, are making even more aggressive proposals for limiting consumer liability for scams. When we are able to harness not just public sector policing efforts, but also private sector incentives, the system becomes stronger and safer for all. But it begins with a first step, of ensuring that losses, not just responsibility, is shared. #makingyourvotecount
Jamus continues house and coffeeshop visits. 
Recent house and coffeeshop visits allowed us to wrap up 308B #Anchorvale, and have an extended visit to the 263 #Compassvale coffeeshop. Perhaps owing to the cooler weather and beginning-of-year vibes, our conversations were longer and more numerous.
One such discussion was about the challenges of childcare for the middle class. As those with kids would be acutely aware, the pre-primary years are often the ones that chalk up the highest expenses, given the costs of infant and childcare, and the relatively more limited subsidies (the relief comes when the child hits primary one, when fees drop to $13 a month for most public schools).
The costs are a little easier to bear when the mother is also working, since subsidies in those cases are commensurately higher. But this doesn’t quite work to fully offset the fees involved, and they become even more burdensome when other supplementary classes (music, swimming, language) are included. And of course, they multiply for every additional kid.
This is one of the key reasons why so many parents decline to have large families, contenting themselves to stop at one or two. Better to focus on fewer, than to spread family resources too thin. But this private choice has spillover effects for the economy down the road, as fewer children eventually imply a smaller workforce, even as elderly dependents live longer.
There are no simple solutions to this. Falling fertility is a reality that confronts many higher-income countries, and we are no exception (there’s even a name for this phenomenon: the demographic transition). But it tends to be most acute in the newly-industrialized East Asian economies, and the current handouts for kids, while appreciated, seldom alter the calculus for most households. Lowering the costs of raising children by providing additional early childhood support, and reducing testing pressure (which leads many to incur additional expenses via tuition) are likely to be more effective.
Jamus Lim
10 h ·Recent house and coffeeshop visits allowed us to wrap up 308B #Anchorvale, and have an extended visit to the 263 #Compassvale coffeeshop. Perhaps owing to the cooler weather and beginning-of-year vibes, our conversations were longer and more numerous.
One such discussion was about the challenges of childcare for the middle class. As those with kids would be acutely aware, the pre-primary years are often the ones that chalk up the highest expenses, given the costs of infant and childcare, and the relatively more limited subsidies (the relief comes when the child hits primary one, when fees drop to $13 a month for most public schools).
The costs are a little easier to bear when the mother is also working, since subsidies in those cases are commensurately higher. But this doesn’t quite work to fully offset the fees involved, and they become even more burdensome when other supplementary classes (music, swimming, language) are included. And of course, they multiply for every additional kid.
This is one of the key reasons why so many parents decline to have large families, contenting themselves to stop at one or two. Better to focus on fewer, than to spread family resources too thin. But this private choice has spillover effects for the economy down the road, as fewer children eventually imply a smaller workforce, even as elderly dependents live longer.
There are no simple solutions to this. Falling fertility is a reality that confronts many higher-income countries, and we are no exception (there’s even a name for this phenomenon: the demographic transition). But it tends to be most acute in the newly-industrialized East Asian economies, and the current handouts for kids, while appreciated, seldom alter the calculus for most households. Lowering the costs of raising children by providing additional early childhood support, and reducing testing pressure (which leads many to incur additional expenses via tuition) are likely to be more effective.
Jamus explains why he believes that limiting the losses faced by victims remains a sound idea. 
A few weeks back, I suggested in Parliament that we consider not only shared responsibility over addressing scams, but also shared losses. This attracted some pushback. It falls on me to better explain why I believe that limiting the losses faced by victims remains a sound idea, which I do in this “Mean Tweets”-style video. #makingyourvotecount
Jamus Lim
12 h ·A few weeks back, I suggested in Parliament that we consider not only shared responsibility over addressing scams, but also shared losses. This attracted some pushback. It falls on me to better explain why I believe that limiting the losses faced by victims remains a sound idea, which I do in this “Mean Tweets”-style video. #makingyourvotecount
Jamus thanks all who joined them.
Over the weekend, we held our #SengkangGRC Chinese New Year celebration at #Compassvale. As befitting the event, it was a boisterous crowd, and a joyful mix of both young ‘uns eager to get their hands dirty with calligraphy and older folks enjoying the colorful cotton candy treats. The customary lion dance ushered in the necessary pomp, and we rounded off with a mass yusheng tossing, a Singaporean-Malaysian tradition that helps us visualize our aspirations for the year to come.
Thanks to all who joined us, and to the unceasing energy and enthusiasm of our #TeamSengkang volunteers. A shout out as well to all who contributed—you know who you are—and please know that your support will undoubtedly go a long way toward helping strengthen the ties in the community, as well as help those who are less fortunate cope with our ever-rising costs of living.
Jamus Lim
3 d ·Over the weekend, we held our #SengkangGRC Chinese New Year celebration at #Compassvale. As befitting the event, it was a boisterous crowd, and a joyful mix of both young ‘uns eager to get their hands dirty with calligraphy and older folks enjoying the colorful cotton candy treats. The customary lion dance ushered in the necessary pomp, and we rounded off with a mass yusheng tossing, a Singaporean-Malaysian tradition that helps us visualize our aspirations for the year to come.
Thanks to all who joined us, and to the unceasing energy and enthusiasm of our #TeamSengkang volunteers. A shout out as well to all who contributed—you know who you are—and please know that your support will undoubtedly go a long way toward helping strengthen the ties in the community, as well as help those who are less fortunate cope with our ever-rising costs of living.
Jamus would have had much less issue with the amendment, had it not been backdated. 
A few months ago, Parliament debated a constitutional amendment bill, which would allow our president and ministers to take up international roles in a private capacity, if it advanced Singapore’s interests. The #workersparty opposed the amendment. Many observers who took issue with the bill expressed their concern that taking on such roles could compromise the efforts of our president and ministers, who were already very busy and highly paid for their time. It’s a fair concern, but for me, a secondary one. As President Tharman explained in a recent interview, our leaders routinely put our national interests at heart, even when they take on roles in a private capacity. Sometimes, international institutions require assurance of independence; hence the amendment.
As someone who has worked in an international financial institution for many years, I can attest to the importance of Singapore being able to exercise a larger global footprint. I’ve spoken up in favor of this, in other contexts, such as via foreign aid. Hence, I’m instinctively inclined to support proposals that advance our nation’s soft power. But where I had a problem with the amendment was how it backdated the amendments to an earlier date, so that it could accommodate President Tharman’s assumption of office.
To be clear, my objection wasn’t about President Tharman at all. I actually have enormous regard for his intellectual and leadership abilities, and in my very brief encounters with him, I’ve also liked him as a person. I trust that he’ll remain professional. But when we change laws after the fact, we are effectively engaged in retrospective lawmaking. This has severe consequences, upending established relationships, and can undermine efficiency and equity. It is even more troublesome if it becomes built into expectations.
The rule of law is one of our nation’s underappreciated strengths. We think of our strategic location, openness to global flows, high-quality talent, and relative safety as key economic strengths. These are, undoubtedly, important. But in my research, I’ve found that institutional quality—especially respect for property rights and the rule of law—trumps most other factors when it comes to investment, including stuff like the control of corruption, the development of the financial sector, and the tax regime. So we weaken this undervalued superpower at our own peril, especially if we want to remain economically competitive globally. Quantitative measures of the rule of law for Singapore have revealed some backsliding over the past decade or so.
While there have been previous changes to the law involving backdating, these have typically been carefully justified, on the basis of their importance. Examples include measures enacted to control COVID, and conditions pertaining to our nation’s independence. So when retroactive revisions are applied to a matter as grave as constitutional amendments—which are, almost by definition, meant to encompass enduring, fundamental principles for our nation—they should face a higher hurdle. For me, constitutional changes to allow the president and ministers to privately take on roles in international institutions do not clear this very high bar. So even if we agree that it’s fine for them to do so (as I’m open to), the circumstances just aren’t sufficiently serious.
I would have had much less issue with the amendment had not been backdated. Doing so for an insufficiently-serious matter cheapens the constitution, and what it represents. It takes the constitutional amendment process for granted. There is a certain arrogance in such a move, born out of a self-assured belief that such actions, when undertaken for good reason, justify changing the rules of the game after the fact. After all, the supermajority the PAP holds in parliamentary allows them to do so. Just because something can be done, it doesn’t mean that it should. This is the sort of policymaking that I associate with giving the PAP a blank check, and what I hope Singaporeans will consider carefully, for the sake of our country’s future. #makingyourvotecount
Jamus Lim
1 d ·A few months ago, Parliament debated a constitutional amendment bill, which would allow our president and ministers to take up international roles in a private capacity, if it advanced Singapore’s interests. The #workersparty opposed the amendment. Many observers who took issue with the bill expressed their concern that taking on such roles could compromise the efforts of our president and ministers, who were already very busy and highly paid for their time. It’s a fair concern, but for me, a secondary one. As President Tharman explained in a recent interview, our leaders routinely put our national interests at heart, even when they take on roles in a private capacity. Sometimes, international institutions require assurance of independence; hence the amendment.
As someone who has worked in an international financial institution for many years, I can attest to the importance of Singapore being able to exercise a larger global footprint. I’ve spoken up in favor of this, in other contexts, such as via foreign aid. Hence, I’m instinctively inclined to support proposals that advance our nation’s soft power. But where I had a problem with the amendment was how it backdated the amendments to an earlier date, so that it could accommodate President Tharman’s assumption of office.
To be clear, my objection wasn’t about President Tharman at all. I actually have enormous regard for his intellectual and leadership abilities, and in my very brief encounters with him, I’ve also liked him as a person. I trust that he’ll remain professional. But when we change laws after the fact, we are effectively engaged in retrospective lawmaking. This has severe consequences, upending established relationships, and can undermine efficiency and equity. It is even more troublesome if it becomes built into expectations.
The rule of law is one of our nation’s underappreciated strengths. We think of our strategic location, openness to global flows, high-quality talent, and relative safety as key economic strengths. These are, undoubtedly, important. But in my research, I’ve found that institutional quality—especially respect for property rights and the rule of law—trumps most other factors when it comes to investment, including stuff like the control of corruption, the development of the financial sector, and the tax regime. So we weaken this undervalued superpower at our own peril, especially if we want to remain economically competitive globally. Quantitative measures of the rule of law for Singapore have revealed some backsliding over the past decade or so.
While there have been previous changes to the law involving backdating, these have typically been carefully justified, on the basis of their importance. Examples include measures enacted to control COVID, and conditions pertaining to our nation’s independence. So when retroactive revisions are applied to a matter as grave as constitutional amendments—which are, almost by definition, meant to encompass enduring, fundamental principles for our nation—they should face a higher hurdle. For me, constitutional changes to allow the president and ministers to privately take on roles in international institutions do not clear this very high bar. So even if we agree that it’s fine for them to do so (as I’m open to), the circumstances just aren’t sufficiently serious.
I would have had much less issue with the amendment had not been backdated. Doing so for an insufficiently-serious matter cheapens the constitution, and what it represents. It takes the constitutional amendment process for granted. There is a certain arrogance in such a move, born out of a self-assured belief that such actions, when undertaken for good reason, justify changing the rules of the game after the fact. After all, the supermajority the PAP holds in parliamentary allows them to do so. Just because something can be done, it doesn’t mean that it should. This is the sort of policymaking that I associate with giving the PAP a blank check, and what I hope Singaporeans will consider carefully, for the sake of our country’s future. #makingyourvotecount
Jamus plans to do an extended walk. 
First Saturday of the month! Do consider joining us for our monthly #SengkangGRC #RiverRun. My physio has asked that I lay off impact running for another couple of weeks, so it’ll be my #TeamSengkang colleague Chua Kheng Wee 蔡庆威 who will lead the charge on the jogging front, while I’ll plan to do an extended walk, likely with our little one in tow. If you’ve an evening free, do consider joining us.
Jamus Lim
3 h ·First Saturday of the month! Do consider joining us for our monthly #SengkangGRC #RiverRun. My physio has asked that I lay off impact running for another couple of weeks, so it’ll be my #TeamSengkang colleague Chua Kheng Wee 蔡庆威 who will lead the charge on the jogging front, while I’ll plan to do an extended walk, likely with our little one in tow. If you’ve an evening free, do consider joining us.
Jamus has a fan of his public speaking style. 
Over the past fortnight, #TeamSengkang house visits allowed us to complete 309A #Anchorvale. Our engagements were warm and prolonged, perhaps owing to the more pleasant weather and start-of-year vibes. We spoke with many families, but two households that had children with achievements they were justifiably proud of.
One of them, Hamilton, was a decorated debater. He shared with me that he liked my public speaking style (aww thanks!). But having never participated in any sort of formal debating exercise during my schooling years, I couldn’t offer much by way of advice. What I have learned, however, is that if you genuinely care enough about an issue, you’ll happily do your homework to learn all that you can about the matter (including arguments that you may disagree with), and that passion will naturally lead you to a conviction that allows you to be more than comfortable with positions you ultimately adopt (thankfully, unlike debates, I generally only need to speak up for matters that I believe in).
Another was Rihanne, an EAGLES Edusave award recipient. While not diminishing success in traditional studies, I find nonacademic awards like this especially meaningful, because so much of what contributes to success later in one’s career is shaped by things that go beyond an academic transcript. These include soft skills, like the ability to engage others, leading from behind, and a flexibility in approaching problems from underexplored angles. It is also the unwritten aspects of individual character: grit, empathy, courage. It is heartening to see it exhibited by someone at a tender age.
As always, while I am unable to hand these awards out directly, I’m happy to write a short note (refreshed for the year!) for those who have received Edusave awards, and are interested in receiving an alternative form of recognition and encouragement. #SengkangGRC
Jamus Lim
13 h ·Over the past fortnight, #TeamSengkang house visits allowed us to complete 309A #Anchorvale. Our engagements were warm and prolonged, perhaps owing to the more pleasant weather and start-of-year vibes. We spoke with many families, but two households that had children with achievements they were justifiably proud of.
One of them, Hamilton, was a decorated debater. He shared with me that he liked my public speaking style (aww thanks!). But having never participated in any sort of formal debating exercise during my schooling years, I couldn’t offer much by way of advice. What I have learned, however, is that if you genuinely care enough about an issue, you’ll happily do your homework to learn all that you can about the matter (including arguments that you may disagree with), and that passion will naturally lead you to a conviction that allows you to be more than comfortable with positions you ultimately adopt (thankfully, unlike debates, I generally only need to speak up for matters that I believe in).
Another was Rihanne, an EAGLES Edusave award recipient. While not diminishing success in traditional studies, I find nonacademic awards like this especially meaningful, because so much of what contributes to success later in one’s career is shaped by things that go beyond an academic transcript. These include soft skills, like the ability to engage others, leading from behind, and a flexibility in approaching problems from underexplored angles. It is also the unwritten aspects of individual character: grit, empathy, courage. It is heartening to see it exhibited by someone at a tender age.
As always, while I am unable to hand these awards out directly, I’m happy to write a short note (refreshed for the year!) for those who have received Edusave awards, and are interested in receiving an alternative form of recognition and encouragement. #SengkangGRC
