Shostakovich Cello Concerto No. 1 Opus 107-A long wait

Good things are worth the wait cannot be more true than in the case of Shostakovich Cello Concerto No. 1 composed in 1959 and dedicated to Rostropovich. Rostropovich had been yearning for Shostakovich to write him a cello concerto but had to harbor it secretly on advisement of Shostakovich's first wife Nina. When asked by Rostropovich how to ask Shostakovich to write him a cello concerto, her advice was not to mention or even hint anything about it. It must have been a long wait as Nina passed away in 1954 and the composition was only realized in 1959; at least a good 5 years. Many did not realize that it was such a long wait until we put the time-line together. When the composition arrived, Rostropovich received it with such enthusiasm by committing it to memory in a matter of 4 days.

Shostakovich was teacher to Rostropovich I believe for orchestration in the 1940s and he certainly held a deep respect for his teacher. When interviewed by The Strad in their May 1959 issue by M.B.Stanfield, his account of the Shostakovich and Prokofiev cello concertos as "They are supreme masterpieces and one cannot expect all music to come up to their standard" says it all.

Both Shostakovich and Rostropovich share a common trait in having a heavy dose of Russian politics intertwined into their musical career. Shostakovich did it mainly through his composition and Rostropovich his stellar cello performance. Shostakovich had many brushes with Stalin having been publicly denounced by Stalin and thereafter living in paranoia fear of death as people who cross path with Stalin have a habit of disappearing from the face of the earth. Although he outlived Stalin who died in 1953, the mental torture has left a debilitating mark on his psychological landscape as evident in many mysterious and unexplainable passages in his compositions. It was mentioned in passing that the fear of death might have been a greater torture than death itself.

As for Rostropovich, it could have been a soul born in the wrong country so to speak as he was very much a libertarian at heart living in communist Russia. In-spite of this, he had great love for motherland Russia choosing to return once his revoked Russian citizenship was restored and was laid to rest in Russia. Some of his landmark political highlights including performing in London in 1968 on the day when Russian tanks rolled into Poland. There was widespread protest at the concert but Rostropovich continued playing Polish composer Dvorak piece with tears in his eyes. The second significant event this time of his choosing was an impromptu basking in front of the Berlin wall in 1989 when the wall came down.

As with most Shostakovich composition, there is little explanation or narration giving the performer and audience almost total free play in interpreting the music with little or no point of reference save for the historical canvas against which it was written in. My main aim in the review of this cello concerto is to provide that backdrop so that you can enjoy the music more deeply in whichever way you heart bring you as there are enough exposition on the music itself.

Briefly, the piece has the signature Shostakovich motif DSCH written all over the piece. Mainstream opinion that it is only a translation of his name could be too simplistic for this four note motif. I think this queasy four note motif that pervades most of his work has a very deep meaning of a man that has gone through much psychological torture and the equation to his name could be a mere coincidence.

This four movement piece also has a unique feature of having the third movement almost exclusively a cadenza. The possible raison detre is to hall mark the piece as a virtuoso to allow Rostropovich latitude to display his prowess. In reviewing the piece with Shostakovich, Rostropovich has told him not to worry about the outer limits of the cello and just let his soul lead the way. This also explain why this piece is one of the more technically challenging piece amongst the limited cello concerto repertoire.

In the last movement, there lies a distorted version of Suliko song which is a favorite of the now dead Stalin. Perhaps it is meant as a mockery of Stalin than a respectful acknowledgement. Unfortunately, he has brought it to the grave without mentioning anything about it.

Lastly Shostakovich has mentioned personally that he drew much inspiration of this piece from Prokofiev Sinfonia Concertante but perhaps my limited understanding of Prokofiev music has me finding it hard to see the relationship between the two. Maybe my love for Shostakovich music as this juncture has to do with the circumstances I am embroiled in.

Some of the recordings I have listened to while writing this article are as follows and it is not in any particular order of preference or merit.

1. Mstislav Rostropovich, Seiji Ozawa, London Symphony Orchestra
2. Mstislav Rostropovich, Gennady Rozhdestvensky, USSR State Symphony Orchestra

3. Mstislav Rostropovich, Eugene Ormandy, Philadelphia Orchestra
4. Yo-Yo Ma, Eugene Ormandy, Philadelphia Orchestra
5. Heinrich Schiff, Maxim Shostakovich, Bavarian Radio Symphony Orchestra
6. Jiri Barta, Maxim Shostakovich, Prague Symphony Orchestra
7. Alexander Ivashkin, Valeri Polyansky, Moscow Symphony Orchestra

8. Frans Helmerson, Valeri Polyansky, Moscow Symphony Orchestra

9. Mischa Maisky, Tilson Thomas, London Symphony Orchestra

Peter Lye aka lkypeter
Safe HarborPlease note that information contained in these pages are of a personal nature and does not necessarily reflect that of any companies, organizations or individuals. In addition, some of these opinions are of a forward looking nature. Lastly the facts and opinions contained in these pages might not have been verified for correctness, so please use with caution. Happy Reading. Copyrights of all contents in this blog belongs to Peter Lye unless stated otherwise.

Why Government Services Fails Sometimes? A Singaporean Perspective-March 2012

Why Government Services Fails Sometimes? A Singaporean Perspective-March 2012

There has been enough negative press about the state of services provided by our government, governmental agencies or government related companies. It ranges from train, bus services and road congestion in the transportation sector to cost of public housing both in the new and re-sale market in the property segment. Cost of tertiary education and basis of allocation of these highly competitive seats as well as entry criteria into primary schools have also invited comments of all shape and size. Even the environment ministry was not spared for the increase incidence of flooding as well as cost of rental of hawker stalls contributing to escalating cost of hawker food which is quite a staple for most Singaporean.

After thinking hard about the surficial causes instead of the root causes being a practical person with limited resources of an arm chair hobbyist commentator, citizenry is not totally innocent for all these as they have only elected the current government into office in the 2011 general elections including the recent presidential elections where the president was elected to add injury to the whole matter. Did the nation’s consensus and consciousness failed terribly in voting in a stupid and incompetent government and if so, we must live with the consequences until the next election and perhaps beyond as some policies of the current government will outlast their term of office. I can almost hear war drums of the vast majority descending upon me that the election was only fair within the sandbox drawn by the long suffering oops I mean long serving incumbent party and personas of People’s Action Party (PAP) which has been the ruling party since time immemorial since Singapore gain independence. Policies such as electoral boundary, group representation which can distort the electoral results in conveying the will of the citizenry but let’s grow up as no election rules will result in simple majority prevails. However, if we were to use the percentage of parliamentary electoral seats against the percentage of individual votes, the gap seems fairly wide. Perhaps some study should be made about this in Singapore and published as an academic paper from the birth of our nation to the last election in 2011 and see how the empirical information paints the situation.

Causes of Failure

There are very good reasons why government services fail sometimes we must recognise some of these premises before we can be part of the solution for the greater good of society. Being a capitalist at heart and one the believes in minimal government, I have seen fairly concerned and critical about the growth of government, this discourse seems out of place as there is a large element in defence of the government. I have not changed my surname nor DNA.

Firstly is the issue of transparency. Except for a few areas like defence relating to external and homeland security, diplomatic relations and perhaps justified covert operations if any. We sometimes forget about the tremendous constraints, cost associated with making transparency in its various shades of hues from opaque, frosted, tinted to switchable variety On one end of the continuum, where and what I decide to have lunch, is a totally private matter. I do not need to publish my rationale for doing so and whether there were interested party involved in the decision. In all likelihood, there might be an interested party like going down to a café owned by my aunt. On the other end of the continuum, in government decision making, there is a presumption it is rationale, free of conflict of interest and if there are, it is properly declared, and can withstand the naked scrutiny of oversight bodies or the public. Transparency is not binary in practice and it ranges from privacy of private individuals which the government must protect in some areas to private companies for which it need only transparency to a small pool of private shareholders to public listed companies accountable to larger audience of shareholders for which anyone can become a shareholder by paying the requisite market price. When private companies go public, they normally suffer the shocking underwear syndrome and see them retching from their mouths that they now need to declare what type and colour of underwear. For the more liberal male captains of these companies that might harbour or like to wear swanky G strings meant for the fairer sex. Metaphorically speaking.

Universal access is the second plague that I sometimes nickname it the 7Eleven solution. A private business have great latitude in deciding what product and services, when, where and who it decides to do business with. For government services, there is a presumption of universal access for all within bounds of stated level of service like operating hours, grade of service etc. For example, we expect police service to be available to us anytime we need and at the force level that mirrors and exceeds the threat we face on hand. However, when we engage the services of a private security company, the expectation is only for the stated hours and for so many people armed in a certain manner. The private security company could plan their resources based on expected volume of business with some expectation that utilization will not be 100% as demand might not be a linear or so closely correlated to the supply. If demand exceeds supply, the private company can call a stock out situation and not provide the service. Of course there would be many stock out cost to be considered in addition to the short term lost in profit opportunity like longer term customer satisfaction and of repeat customers. However, for the police service, if it fails to respond to any call for service, it risks a major public affairs situation as well as potential political collateral damage to incumbent elected officials. To be fair, the police can only plan their resources based on past records as well as future projections. The journalistic maxim of 1 life too many can result in an over staffed and resourced government services.

One of the commonly cited rationales that some services like certain segment of public transport cannot be privatized because of the need to provide universal access in terms of hours of operations and route to cover unprofitable hours and routes to provide universal access. My challenge is to re-examine the operations of the 7Eleven franchisor/ franchisee model whereby shops are kept open 24 hours a days all year round including new year holidays. This business model has been so successful that its operations is almost global and have even attracted copycat franchisor operating similar models in some countries. Perhaps the Singapore Land Transport Authority (LTA) that is both regulator and licensor of transportation services both private and public should re-consider their current practice of licensing public transport to a handful of companies to operate rail and bus to consider the public suggestion of allowing a larger pool of private small bus operators to be a part of the public transportation services like in Hong Kong which has quite similar population density and size as Singapore. Big buses and rail transportation is not likely to be a good answer to off peak hours as well as less densely populated areas and could actually represent a larger carbon footprint than private cars. Work on the licensing and oversight practical to small private operators and this could well be part of the solution to our current transportation woes than multi-billion dollar funding for more buses, bus lanes and bus stops.

The third item comprehensive planning to me is one of the greater joke. While failing to plan is planning to fail but planning like crystal ball gazing is comprehensive to the extent that is takes into consideration currently known variables and certain reasonable assumptions. Legislators and judges act as if current wisdom as embodied in the constitution/statutes and case law respectively are evergreen. I used to work in healthcare once and know of the need for the health ministry to license clinics and hospitals to ensure that they comply with certain requirements to ensure that they can provide their services safely and this is a very good idea. If a qualified doctor decides to operate a doctor on wheels service providing care to patients only on a house call basis without a physical address, I wonder how his so called clinic can be licensed. It makes sense in land scarce Singapore where rental cost is high and is passed onto patients indirectly. Here I go again getting LTA in the picture as it might be illegal to use a vehicle as a clinic as it is only meant for transportation purposes.

Smart Government

The basis for deciding whether a particular goods or service should be the exclusive enclave of the government or best left to the private sector is a very academic one and I would not want to repeat the wisdom of many before me here. There should be an oversight committee tasked and empowered by the people for the people to make recommendations to parliament. This is to ensure that in areas where the government should be playing a role and is not doing so be brought to task. It would also be empowered to investigate governmental involvement in the economy through various government owned subsidiaries, joint ventures or related companies. If the government needs to invest excess funds in the economy of Singapore, there should be a proper blind trust that does this for the government free of executive over lord or interferences.

Peter Lye aka lkypeter
Safe Harbor
Please note that information contained in these pages are of a personal nature and does not necessarily reflect that of any companies, organizations or individuals. In addition, some of these opinions are of a forward looking nature. Lastly the facts and opinions contained in these pages might not have been verified for correctness, so please use with caution. Happy Reading. Copyrights of all contents in this blog belongs to Peter Lye unless stated otherwise.

Effects of Government on Macro Economic Performance-Singapore Experience

Human nature prevails that where credit is due, the queue to claim it can be mile long and on the same note, when blames needs to be apportioned, all and sundry will stay miles away from the situation. This small and young nation of Singapore commonly known as the little red dot was once near annihilation due to a multitude of factors like racial/religious divide, poor economy, low rate of literacy with absolutely no natural resources to live on the land. This era of the 1960s bore witness to the bitter struggle for independence that was also opportunistically made use by the communist to agitate the populace against their old colonial masters flying the altruistic flag of our struggle for freedom but with a more sinister underlying aim of converting the country into a communist state. Racial and religious issues especially racial issues were polarized to stir the pot of multi-racial harmonious co-existence and tolerance into a struggle for a monolithic society. All these are behind us save for the historians whose records of these events through their individual looking glass on what and why of the past. History was never meant to be an objective study although foundational principles are there to shed light along our path towards the truth.

The then chief minister and the current minister mentor Lee Kuan Yew and his contemporaries many of which has left the cabinet and this life due to old age have pre-sided over a period of renaissance of Singapore economy with many years of double digit growth and structural transformation of the economy from a industrial/manufacturing to a knowledge and service orientated economy as Singapore survive one after another economic downturn with relatively small and quick healing battle scar of economic recession.

This period also witnessed the baton of premiership handed over from Lee Kuan Yew to Goh Chok Tong to our present prime minister Lee Hsien Loong who is the eldest son of Lee Kuan Yew. The issue of cabinet remuneration and sustainable leadership quality was maturely brought up in the open as a discussion point for the public to opined on. The basic argument being that we cannot expect a quality leadership to bring Singapore into the next leap on an altruistic only basis and a comparatively pittance financial reward. A novel model was brought to bear that benchmarked the political leaders and top civil servants salaries against the top n earners of the captains of various industries like lawyers, doctors, engineers etc. The application of the model had the effect of pushing up the salaries of the these leaders fairly substantially. The basis of which was that it would be a model that will serve us well in good and bad times as the cabinet salaries would decline if the top salaries were to decline in an economic downturn and provides for a certain level of social equity as well.

My basic belief being that poorly remunerated political leaders and top civil servants might lead be linked to poor economic performance but high remuneration is not a pre-condition for good economic performance and might not guarntee good economic performance in most cases.

First of all, we shall try to proxy good economic performance against a basket of indicators and this is not perfect or the best but would suffice for this discourse. The proxies are:

-GDP or GNP

-GDP or GNP compounded growth

-Measurement of government participation in economy - Fiscal Budget/GDP or GNP
-Years in power of head of state
-% of popular votes to ruling party
-% of seats controlled by ruling party
-Gini index
-UN Human Development Index

Our closest neighbour Malaysia has a parallel in having an iconic leader helm the top post for many terms. Mahatair Mohamed in the case of Malaysia and Lee Kuan Yew in the case of Singapore. Fortunately or unfortunately, both countries does not have a ruling to limit the number of terms the prime minister can stay in office like in USA where it is limited to 2 terms. We shall measure USA differently on this proxy in terms of number of presidents that managed to serve their maximum two term. It is indeed a good record as Bush, Clinton, Ragean all did two two terms. It was only in recent past that Malaysia saw some movement after Mahatair stepped down. In both countries, it is not invisible that both iconic leaders continue to enjoy some influence over the political landscape even though they are no longer prime ministers.

Peter Lye aka lkypeter
Safe Harbor
Please note that information contained in these pages are of a personal nature and does not necessarily reflect that of any companies, organizations or individuals. In addition, some of these opinions are of a forward looking nature. Lastly the facts and opinions contained in these pages might not have been verified for correctness, so please use with caution. Happy Reading. Copyrights of all contents in this blog belongs to Peter Lye unless stated otherwise.