Singapore Democrats

Home News Singapore Who is PERC?
Who is PERC? Print E-mail
Monday, 22 September 2008

Singapore Democrats

The Political and Economic Risk Consultancy or PERC, as it is commonly referred to, is held in high praise by Singapore's establishment.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew himself placed the organisation in the same esteemed group with global institutions like the International Bar Association (IBA). That is, until IBA criticised the Judiciary, which then made it a Western liberal NGO out to do this island in.

The Minister Mentor is not the only one, Ministers Mentee also cite the company whenever they get the chance.

The Straits Times regularly carries prominent reports written by it.

"Non-government" think-tanks like the Singapore Institute of International Affairs cannot resist citing it

Even our Supreme Court proudly refers to it.

So who or what is this group that is so admired by Singapore's establishment? Who runs this outfit and what does it do?

PERC's website tells us that it is a "consulting firm specializing in strategic business information and analysis for companies" doing business in East and Southeast Asia. It also produces a range of risk reports on the strengths and weaknesses of individual countries in the region. So far so solid.

But when it comes to information about who runs the organisation, the website is rather diffident. For example under "Senior Management", there is only one name -- a Robert Broadfoot who is described as an economics graduate “directly responsible for managing PERC's research and consulting.”

Is there a governing board? If yes, who is on it? If no, is PERC a sole-proprietorship? Does anyone else run the organisation with Mr Broadfoot?

Based in Hong Kong, PERC says it “coordinates a team of researchers and analysts” but doesn't tell us who they are, how many there are, and what their areas of expertise are. Do they work full-time for the Consultancy or on an ad hoc project basis? If part-time, what are their main occupations and what companies do they work for?

The organisation also avers its "complete independence from any vested interest groups." Several lines below, however, it says that it engages in "retainer work and specific projects" and "in-house briefings" for international business associations. Who these groups and associations are is not revealed.

Such information is important as it allows the reader a gauge of just how independent the organisation is and, by extension, how reliable its reports are. This is especially salient when the reports are cited by governments for political purposes. Simply asserting that the company is completely independent does not make it so.

For example one of its analysts, Mr Bruce Gale, is also a senior writer with the Straits Times. Whether he continues to work for PERC is unclear as the website has no information on him.

Given the nature of the state-media arrangement in Singapore, it is more than fair to ask what an employee of an organisation that is supposed to have "complete independence" is doing writing for a newspaper owned and run by a government. It is imperative that PERC makes clear the status of Mr Gale.

Ironically, Mr Gale himself notes that "most political risk assessment remains both superficial and subjective. Typically, such analysis is very informal, consisting of little more than a few brief visits to the country..."

Even the information about the surveys that PERC conducts such as the kinds of questions asked, the variables used, the sample characteristics, etc are not readily available. One assumes that they are contained in the reports which cost US$645 to subscribe annually. Analysis of the reliability and validity of such surveys is lacking. This is a problem. Yet, the results are held next to biblical truth by those who benefit from it.

The next and obvious question is: Who pays for PERC's services? One will not be surprised to find Singapore's establishment a ready customer. For example, the Nanyang Technological University and the National Institute of Education are online subscribers to the organisation's Monthly Risk reports.

And what do these reports contain? The page tells us that the topics covered are "Politics, Economics, Business." Politics? The Singapore Democrats can confirm that PERC has never attempted to seek our views on matters political in Singapore. We're unsure if the Consultancy has interviewed any other opposition party or civil society group. We could easily find out by doing a search on its website. The only problem is the website doesn't have a Search button.

Given that the organisation is so oft-quoted by the Singapore establishment, it is time that more questions are asked of PERC which must do a better job of providing background information about itself. A consultancy that assesses the political and economic risk of countries must surely understand the importance of transparency.

This article was sent to PERC at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it and it was invited to respond. If and when it does, we will publish it here.

 

 

Share this article:
Facebook Technorati Stumble It! Newsvine Reddit Del.icio.us Digg This!
Comments
Search RSS
Carlson  -     Mon, 22 Sep 2008 8:04 am
Good job SDP. People should start doing fact and source checking before believing what PAP dishes out.
Anonymous  -  Need to consult SDP ?    Mon, 22 Sep 2008 8:11 am
"... the topics covered are "Politics, Economics, Business." Politics? We can confirm that PERC has never attempted to seek SDP's views."


It does not even have to consult SDP. What substance does SDP have, to even warrant consultation ? NOTHING.

SDP only gives biased views out of hatred.
anon  -  PERC    Mon, 22 Sep 2008 10:13 am
Perhaps we should really go thru' LKY's past accolades. Who knows ...
Derek_wong  -     Mon, 22 Sep 2008 11:06 am
First time I feel SDP is asking the right questions!

well done guys. Hope you guys can find out more.
Anonymous  -     Mon, 22 Sep 2008 12:06 pm
"Who pays for PERC's services? It's not exactly earth-shattering news to find Singapore's establishment a ready customer."

In other countries on Earth, Conflict of Interest is deemed as a kind of CORRUPTION.

In Singapore, which is so eclectically governed that it ought to exist only in Mars, that CORRUPTION is Uniquely defined by the LEEgime Elites to allow Conflict of Interest legally permitted and accepted and recognised as CLEAN.
ExSINgaporean  -  Dig more    Mon, 22 Sep 2008 1:11 pm
Now we know why LKY hates and even afraid of SDP.

These type of questions reminds me of my MBA education in Imperial College, London England when my business professor, Professor Eilon would question the validity of the research findings of Marketing firms and the underlining truth of statistical data.

Just like if Bill Gates walks into a hall will 100 homeless people, "statistically" on the average in the hall all of them are "millionaires". Is this happening in Singapore?...with all the rich Indonesians residing as PR in Singapore. You get my point?

Later when I did a English business letter writing course under a British lecturer, we were again reminded to question the hidden meanings of the words. For eg if someone writes: "Singapore economy is "good"". Then what is meant by good? Quantify it is possible.
curious  -     Mon, 22 Sep 2008 2:41 pm
i think sdp should subject organization it cites proudly from to this scrutiny too. it will then make it fair, and show the sdp's impartiality and enhance its credibility.

dont just cry foul, show some evidence to support your side too. dont just lampoon the other side; their loss and not necessarily your gain.

and interestingly, will the sdp provide information on its funding purposes? in the pursuit of thoroughness and truthfulness, will the sdp demonstrate that it is, unlike what PERC is suspected of, absolutely independent, and not acting under the influence of any group or persons who are funding them?

we all know the people who fund groups have very strong last word on policies. so perhaps it is high time sdp shows us this side of things?

that'll be greatly appreciated by all and sundry who wants to know about the aspiring ruling party of spore.
curious too  -     Mon, 22 Sep 2008 6:06 pm
Hi Curious

Is is not great that you can so openly demand that SDP to be transparent and stand up to scrutiny. Now would you or could you do the same with the ruling party. Lets just start by asking them to disclose the details of all their family and kin in govdernment positions.
lol  -  irony??????????    Mon, 22 Sep 2008 6:25 pm
What a big irony /joke of the year -LOL- MM/LHL visitng Britain's Opposition but in their own country - their "FIX" OPPOSTIONS LIKE NO BODY'S BUSINESS????????????????????????????
anon  -  MM Visit    Mon, 22 Sep 2008 7:15 pm
May be the ruling party wants nothing to do with him?

Also, I don't think PAP is afraid of SDP ... if we think this way, we are doomed to fail.
fairplay  -  MM's visit    Mon, 22 Sep 2008 8:04 pm
The reason the govt. does not have dialogue with the opposition in Singapore is because they have no substance and are losers out to destroy the country. Those who support the above writing are envious of the success of others and refuse to acknowledge the progress the country had made.
maxChew  -  All clutching the only straw available?    Mon, 22 Sep 2008 10:26 pm
Why is every Govt official up to the PM, SM and MM as well as the pro-estab media referencing PERC for its continual praise and bum-sucking of S'pore? It's the only international watchdog albeit quite well-known body available that speaks well of S'pore.
When u r drowning, u look for any floating thing to cling on to, even a straw. In this allegory, all of them (led by MM) have found the PERC straw and are clinging on to it for dear life.
It's now up to SDP to investigate fully what kind of org PERC actually is. Is it an independent genuine
watchdog or something else? Don't forget nowsaday, with money, one can buy/sell almost anything and everything.
Anonymous  -     Mon, 22 Sep 2008 10:32 pm
Quote:
Those who support the above writing are envious of the success of others and refuse to acknowledge the progress the country had made.


Sure the place (Singapore) has progress, spanking upgraded HDBs and nice clean highways, but has the PEOPLE progress as a whole. Have you forgotten that the lower 25% of the income earners have been left behind this thing call 'progress' for more than 10 years now.

And what about the others, most are just in line with inflation while others are 'progress' by an annual token of 2% - 3% over inflation (progress? or just treading water). Mind this dismal wage situation is no thanks to the PAP ministers who have done their utmost to keep the people's wages low while driving their own wages to the stratosphere compared to leaders around the world.

Progress??!! You seems to forget that whatever progress that this place has, comes from the collective effort of the people. Not just due to a few PAP ministers at the top.

The PAP leaders. They progress by leaps and bounds. Millionaires many times over year after year. To a great many people for more than 10 years --- what progress??
Anonymous  -     Mon, 22 Sep 2008 10:47 pm
They imagine they are Gods.
But peasants have another dream.


Oppression Evolution Under LEEgime
厉狂妖贼暴政镇压异己演化史
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHQ7DERbTjU



Imagine A Singapore.....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqtFKkqe8z8
N  -  re: Dig more    Tue, 23 Sep 2008 12:05 am
ExSINgaporean wrote:
Now we know why LKY hates and even afraid of SDP.

These type of questions reminds me of my MBA education in Imperial College, London England when my business professor, Professor Eilon would question the validity of the research findings of Marketing firms and the underlining truth of statistical data.

Just like if Bill Gates walks into a hall will 100 homeless people, "statistically" on the average in the hall all of them are "millionaires". Is this happening in Singapore?...with all the rich Indonesians residing as PR in Singapore. You get my point?

Later when I did a English business letter writing course under a British lecturer, we were again reminded to question the hidden meanings of the words. For eg if someone writes: "Singapore economy is "good"". Then what is meant by good? Quantify it is possible.


Wow.
I think you've just shattered the "Singapore is a first world nation" myth for me.

I really do wonder sometimes why Singapore is so vent on silencing opposing voices.

But you've shed a bit of light on that I feel.
Please login or register to post your comments.

3.26 Copyright (C) 2008 Compojoom.com / Copyright (C) 2007 Alain Georgette / Copyright (C) 2006 Frantisek Hliva. All rights reserved."

 

Awesome Words

Hope is not the conviction that something will turn out well, but the certainty that something makes sense regardless of how it turns out.

Vaclav Havel

Other languages

Banner
Banner
Banner
Banner
Banner
 
Banner
Banner
Banner
Banner
Banner
Banner

News feeds

Singapore Democrat News
Joomla Templates by JoomlaShack