Coaching in Asia- Mind over Matter on Stigma


What is coaching? Eminent coach Jeffrey T Sooey; President of JTS has categorically stated being a coach is NOT equivalent to being a consultant, guru, expert, psychologist or friend. This is important as coaching has been closely associated rightly or wrongly with psychotherapy, psychiatry or sanity.
This is important in Asia because in general, psychology, psychiatrist and sanity are viewed narrowly in a binary manner or either sane or insane instead of a continuum. To combat this, Institute of Mental Health in Singapore started an Early Psychosis Intervention Programme to overcome the stigma and get patients to seek help earlier for better outcomes. In the same vein, one should also seek coaching earlier as you never know how it can help unlock the potential in you.
In a nutshell, coaching is supportive in nature involving training, teaching and development to reach professional or personal goals. It is more developmental rather than therapeutic as described above.

The Chinese Experience
(c)Peking University

We shall examine how coaching was already in existence in ancient time by examining the famous “Romance of the Three Kingdoms” written by Liu GuanZhong around 14 century as a non-fiction. It was set against the backdrop around the end of Han Dynasty and start of Sui Dynasty. Between these two dynasties, China went through a period of disunity and the Three Kingdoms was a part of this chaotic era. Though it was written as a novel, it had a strong dose of historical fact embedded to qualify as one of the great four great writings of Chinese literature therefore reflective of the culture of that era. The significant characters of interest are advisors Zhuge Liang and Sima Yi together with their masters Liu Bei and Cao Cao respectively.
The plot is thick, complex and long but the important plots here were the four main castes. The two leaders by way of benevolent Liu Bei and villain Cao Cao and their advisers Zhuge Liang and Sima Yi. In today’s context we could equate both Zhuge Liang and Sima Yi as having played the role of coach to their leaders. It was very evident that the advisers were not part of the line of authority and served in staff role giving them a more objective perspective. In coaching lingua franca, we would put them as not belonging to the system. Their primary role was to ensure the success of their masters and they were trusted and highly regarded by their masters. They do not hold direct executive power in most instances save for short period of time when the situation was dire. This distinction is important as coaches that cross this line to be part of the system normally do so with non-optimal outcomes if not managed carefully.
“The Art of War” widely attributed to Sun Tzu is another prime example. Although the authorship is still highly debated amongst scholars in light of new archaeological findings. This discourse is not important to us as there is common agreement that it existed way before the “Romance of the Three Kingdoms”. This book has reached renowned status globally and has been translated into many languages and adopted by many modern management schools and practitioners. Sun Tzu was a military advisor and/or general to King Hule of Wu State and highly regarded as an advisor to the King. It is interesting that the legacy he left behind in this book has served as a virtual coach to the many readers of his book who internalized the dictum appropriately. In the contentious chapter 11 of his book, he states the leader must be "serene and inscrutable" and capable of comprehending "unfathomable plans" which was against many modern thinking that the leader must stay in touch with ground zero. This truism was most probably why a leader needs a coach. A coach can apply frameworks more independently being NOT a part of the system and therefore able to help the leader see the forest from the trees better as both aspects are equally important.

Modern US Government

In modern government like USA, the President is surrounded by many advisors specializing in different areas like homeland, security, economics etc, as well as secretaries. A key differentiator between these advisors and the secretaries surrounding him lies in the fact that the advisors are non-executive in nature whereas those of the secretaries are executive in nature either directly or by fiat. By doing so, these advisors are also playing the role of a coach being detached from the system itself and having less issues when it comes to conflict of interests.
The “realization of what you are lacking is the beginning of knowledge” and coaching might bridge that all important divide standing between you and your goals in both the corporate and/or personal arenas. So what is stopping you from calling a coach and examine what a difference coaching can make to you and your key men and make a difference in your organization.
Peter Lye aka lkypeter
lkypeter@gmail.comSafe 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. Peter Lye
(c) Peter Lye 2014

The Great Singapore CPF (pension) Discussion.

Source: CPF.GOV.SG
Dr. TOH Chin Chye as a pioneer batch of PAP ministers spoke in parliament in 1984 that "The fundamental principle is this. The CPF is really a fixed deposit or a loan to the government, which can be withdrawn at a fixed date when the contributor is 55 years old." It ought to generate more questions about his reason for this passionate statement on CPF and went to far as to say "It is as simple as this, that the CPF has lost its credibility, the management of it. This is fundamental."

I am happy to say that current government still recognizes the gravity of this fundamental as 55 years old withdrawal lamp post is still there but might not shine as brilliantly as in the past. 


For the fortunate few that can meet both the special and medisave minimum sums ( which will be S$155,000 and S$40,500 for special and medisave account respectively as 1st July2014 ), it is not that bad as they can still withdraw remaining amount above the minimum sums. They can collect the minimum sum when they hit 65 years old not as a lump sum but as a monthly annuity. Previous rule allows full withdrawal.

For others who do not meet these minimum sum requirements, the government has made a good gesture in allowing withdrawal up to S$5,000 or whatever is in your CPF if your balance is less than S$5,000. 

On the reverse,  the government has also liberalized the usage of CPF for home purchases ( both public and private ), various types of investment, education and healthcare. From a funding standpoint, I disagree with Dr. Toh's analogy of equating CPF to a fixed deposit. With such liberalizations, CPF have a more challenging and less predictable cash flow that on all reasonable counts must lead to a lower rate of return.


The government might want to consider shifting the annuity payout age to 55 to coincide with the magical number as oppose to the current 65. My guess for the 55 and 65 reference points are these. Firstly, population is aging rapidly compounded by sharp fall in birth rate. Secondly, life expectancy has also increased with better healthcare. 


Shaving 10 years off an annuity will result in lower monthly payout but it will cover more members. The current average life expectancy of 80.2 and 84.6 for men and women respectively is an AVERAGE and does not show its distribution. Some might not live to 65 to enjoy the payout. Perhaps DOS should release this information.

If we put these two counter weights on a balance, it might not be so bleak. However, I do take issue with the almost unilateral bull dozing manner in it's implementation and the failure to explain the rationale and facts more succinctly.


In retrospect, CPF might have served its purpose as a retirement fund if kept purely as such without allowance to fund housing, healthcare and education. We are too deep into it making. Even if CPF wants to change course, grandfathering will be difficult and complex even if the heart is willing but the soul is weak.



Peter Lye aka lkypeter
lkypeter@gmail.com

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.  Peter Lye
© Peter Lye 2014