Building more world-class Singapore firms

June 6, 2009

FINANCE MINISTRY’S 50TH YEAR

Building more world-class S’pore firms

By Ngiam Tong Dow

THE year 1959 was a fateful one for Singapore. It was granted self-government by the British after 140 years of colonial rule. Other than foreign affairs and defence, the new Singapore Government led by Mr Lee Kuan Yew was free to pursue its own social and economic policies.

Mr Lee chose Dr Goh Keng Swee, the only economist in his team, to be our first finance minister. The Ministry of Finance (MOF) was housed in Fullerton Building. The General Post Office occupied the ground floor; MOF occupied the second to fifth floors.

As MOF alumni, we can be proud of belonging to the pioneering team, led by the inspiring Dr Goh, our minister, and by the late Mr Hon Sui Sen, our permanent secretary. We worked our guts out to pull the economy out of stagnation.

The Finance Ministry that Dr Goh established was not your traditional Treasury. Together with Mr Hon, he created the Economic Development Division to spearhead our economic development. The Economic Development Board (EDB) was set up as the operating arm of this division, tasked with finding jobs for the thousands of young students pouring out of our schools each year.

The EDB was given a grant of $100 million to get going. In return for the freedom to operate, its performance was continuously assessed. It was rated on outcomes more than outputs. The EDB chairman had to report annually the dollar value of the foreign direct investments committed to Singapore. He still does.

MOF’s fiscal policy has always been to stimulate growth through investment. As Permanent Secretary (Budget), I accorded higher priority to the development over the recurrent budget. The development budget invests for the future. In the early stages, the development budget was spent mainly on building infrastructure.

Over the last 50 years, we have seen Singapore’s budget priorities move from physical infrastructure to defence capability and now, education and training.

Though we are not totally free of ‘white elephant’ boo-boos, MOF’s track record in allocating scarce capital is good. Our current revenue was enough to pay for both operating as well as development expenditure. If the Government were a private corporation, we would have been able to finance all our capital expenditure without a cent of debt.

Was Singapore’s MOF more virtuous than our counterparts elsewhere? The fact of the matter is that we did what we did because we had no alternative. Without oil or other natural resources, budget surpluses and CPF savings were our only sources for accumulating reserves. Except in extremis, reserves are not intended to be spent on rainy days of the business cycle. The fundamental role of reserves is to serve as backing for our currency. A stable and convertible Singapore dollar is our lifeline to international trade on which our very survival depends.

In spite of the immense pressures exerted by the rest of Government on the MOF, I would be wary of dipping into our reserves to tide us over the troughs of business cycles. I remember the first global oil crisis of 1972. Mr Hon, by then Minister for Finance, refused to subsidise consumption. He thought it better for Singapore to swallow the medicine of inflation in one gulp. The cost of living index stabilised within 18 months.

MOF’s mission as guardian of the national budget will be more challenging in the future. For instance, before we can decide on how to allocate the research budget, we need to have some idea of the knowledge domains that Singapore has a more than even chance to compete in. Is it biotechnology, nano-engineering, solar energy or something else?

Spending on R&D in my view is too narrow a focus as a growth strategy. In any case, we do not have the breadth and depth of talent to compete successfully with the Americans, Europeans, Japanese, Russians, and in the near future, the Chinese and Indians.

We may be able to hire a few superstars to head our research institutions. But a Nobel laureate cannot work in isolation. He or she needs teams of young researchers to do the basic experiments. Young PhDs in China work for a fraction of the wages we pay our young dons at our two research universities. Ms Oliver Lum of Hyflux told me that the core membrane research work of her company was done at Hyflux laboratories in China.

Rather than pursuing high science whatever the cost, we may have to adopt a less lofty approach. We should ask ourselves: What are the knowledge domains we can excel in?

Singapore has a fair track record in building townships, industrial parks, container ports, submersible oil rigs, vocational and technical education and water treatment installations like Hyflux. As the example of Singapore Airlines shows, it is possible to build up a world-scale Singapore company on our own. SIA’s founding board had no foreign director or CEO.

The way forward for us is to have the guts to build another 25 world-scale ‘SIAs’ in the knowledge domains where we have a competitive advantage.

I learnt many lessons in economic policymaking from Dr Albert Winsemius, Singapore’s first Economic Adviser. The most valuable lesson he taught me was that you have to do the things that matter yourself.

After pulling ourselves up by our own bootstraps in the pioneering years, we now outsource the CEO jobs to foreign talent. The irony is that when trouble looms, the foreign CEO just dusts off the seat of his pants and walks away with his sign-off bonus negotiated when he first signed on.

I refuse to believe that the Singaporean has so lost confidence in himself.

The pyramids of Egypt were built by the Pharoahs’ Hebrew slaves. The Egyptian Pharoenic race is now lost in antiquity. The Jewish Hebrew nation continues to thrive.

Quo Vadis Singapore? The above is an excerpt of a speech Mr Ngiam, a former senior civil servant, delivered yesterday to mark the 50th anniversary of the Ministry of Finance.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=30720.2

Saturday June 6, 2009

Public apathy worrying

INSIGHT: DOWN SOUTH WITH SEAH CHIANG NEE

Most switch off when the topic switches to politics. They find it more prudent to make money than risk careers opposing the government.

DR GEH Min has never voted in a general election since Singa-pore became a self-governing state 50 years ago.

The former president of The Nature Society, who mentioned this in a seminar, said that non-participation in the voting process was depriving Singaporeans of diversity and choice.

The story of Dr Geh, a nominated MP, is not unique. It is shared by more than half the electorate.

These non-voters were not disenfranchised, but merely the casualties of a regular feature in Singapore politics – the election walkovers.

During the last four general elections, an average of 54% of Parliament seats were uncontested.

In 2006, voters in 37 wards out of 84 constituencies were mere spectators.

Earlier, in 1991, 1997 and 2001, the percentages of walkovers against total contested seats were 50.4%, 56.4% and 65.4%, respectively.

Why is this economically advanced city so backward in political development?

Public apathy is one reason. People prefer making money than going into politics, let alone risk their careers by opposing the government.

Realising this, the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP) offers large financial inducements to attract top candidates, something no opposition party can match.

There is, however, a bigger reason. It is the government’s history of crackdowns on political opponents and laws that make it tough for the opposition to fight – let alone win – an election.

Some political tinkering may be in the offing.

It comes as Singapore marks its 50th year of existence as a modern state since Britain granted it self-government in 1959 under Lee Kuan Yew.

It is a historical landmark. Last week, national TV began running parts of a documentary called A State of Mind that depicted its journey to the present.

Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong announced the changes that could result in a bigger election turnout and a greater opposition role in Parliament.

Compared to past practices of building obstacles, the new measures are a refreshing and encouraging development.

The most significant is the reduction of the Group Representation Constituency (GRC), which is a major cause for the poor election participation.

The number of single wards will be increased from nine to 12 (the demand is for all of them), while multiple-MPs constituencies will be capped at five instead of the present six.

Another is an increase in the number of non-elected MPs (NCMPs) from three to nine in the event of a poor opposition showing.

This means that, for example, if the opposition were to win only three seats, six of its best losers could go in as NCMPs – but without being able to vote on major issues.

The GRC system was started in 1988 with the first three-candidate GRC aimed at ensuring minority representation in Parliament. It groups three stipulated wards into one by adding up their votes.

The fear 20 years ago – not without justification – was over the possibility of Chinese voting along racial lines and keeping out Malay and Indian candidates.

Since then, it has moved some distance away from this aim as GRCs began to expand from three to six MPs.

Each expansion spelled more gloom to opposition politics and more PAP candidates were declared winners on Nomination Day.

In 2006, Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong admitted that the system would help new PAP candidates to win.

The changes are unlikely to alter the political landscape. The ruling party continues to outgun the fractious opposition.

Although the recession-hit electorate has of late displayed unhappiness over a series of mistakes and unpopular decisions made by the PAP, there is no sign of mass disaffection.

The cloud of apathy and lack of public interest in cooperating with it, however, can be very damaging to the nation after Minister Mentor Lee is no longer around.

Despite its history of past achievements, surprisingly not many of the ruling scholar-class elites are particularly liked by the public.

After a generation of top-down government, many Singaporeans are apathetic and have little interest in the government or what it does.

A survey conducted by a body affiliated to the government found that:

■ Some 63.4% of Singaporeans knew little or nothing about the Constitution and the organs of state.

■ Two-thirds, or more than 66%, of Singaporeans believed that they had little or no influence at all on national issues.

■ A whopping 92.7% had never given feedback to the Government, and 94.9% had never written letters to a newspaper.

■ And 94.5% don’t know what it’s like to sign a petition.

Institute of South-East Asian Studies fellow Terence Chong said most Singaporeans tend to automatically “switch off” when it comes to matters related to politics.

Letter writer David Cai suggested that the government had an image problem and should take stronger measures to shed its totalitarian image.

Unless this was done, people would continue to feel marginalised, disenchanted and estranged from decision-making, he added.

Singaporean Faye Tan, a 37-year-old mother of two, admitted to a reporter that she did not know who her MP was.

“I’ve never met him before. Unless you have issues, you probably won’t bother to find out,” she said.

Political scientists view the disinterest as a worrying development for this young nation.

“For a strong nation, government and people must work together to compete with the world and stay on top of world problems, especially in security.”

His second thought: “Will this public apathy make Singapore easy meat for a foreign predator?”

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=30388.1

纪念“五一三”

纪念“五一三”

陈国相

今年是“五一三” 事件的五十五周年。一个轰轰烈烈的青年学生反殖民地主义运动在转眼间就过去了半个世纪。

一九五四年五月十三日，新加坡的华文中学生，因为不愿意充当殖民地战争中的炮灰，集体上街示威，反对殖民政府制订的兵役法令。青年学生们从正在举行全新华校学生运动会的惹兰勿杀运动场结队出发，使平常竞争激烈的比赛场面，一时从各学校看台传出“团结就是力量”的壮烈歌声。请愿学生的目的地是当时的总督府，可是当他们游行至皇家山脚下的槟城路时，便遭到警察的阻挡和攻击，结果有学生受伤，也有数十人被捕。

青年学生虽然未能完成当日请愿的计划，却在社会上激起了一阵经久不息的反殖浪潮。一方面，华人社会纷纷对政府不但不和平处理学生的要求，还用暴力对付他们而提出异议。前新加坡工人党领袖，后来的半自治政府首席部长马绍尔律师亲自见到学生被警察殴打流血，抗议警察利用暴力对付手无寸铁的年轻学生。当年的英文虎报编辑，后来的独立政府部长拉惹列南也在社论中批评政府无理。另一方面，一部分受英文教育的大学生，也起来支持华校中学生的要求。马来亚大学(即现在的国大)社会主义俱乐部在它的喉舌“华惹”("Fajar"，是马来语的“黎明”)报发表评论，将殖民地政府用暴力对付学生的事件，视为今后英国将如何利用东南亚联防条约来对付反殖运动的例子，号召马来亚人民起来反对该条约。

“华惹”报的评论，引起殖民地政府总督的不悦。编辑部的八名学生集体被控告，触犯煽动罪。因示威而被捕的华校中学生，也遭到殖民地政府的指控非法集会、举行暴动。两组来自不同源流的学生，首次互相牵连而被告上法庭，这在殖民地政府有意分化被统治者的马来亚，本来就是一件史无前列的事。学生们更借这机会将事件扩大，特别从伦敦请了英女皇律师布里特为他们辩护。在当时刚从英国学成回来不久的青年律师李光耀的协助之下，布里特说服了法官，免了“华惹”报编辑部的全部学生答辩政府的指控，也使一部分被控的华校生免入监牢。

但是事件并不因此而平息下来，因为在这些天里，不仅是华校中学生已经组织起联合全新加坡各华文中学的学生免役代表团，并在华侨中学举行为期数星期的集体抗议。接着又在一九五五年十月成立了新加坡华文中学生联合会。学生家长们也搞起自己的团体来保护子女们的切身利益。在殖民地政府蒙受困扰的当儿，曾经受过压制和打击的工会也重现，妇女们也首次起来成立了新加坡妇女联合会。为李光耀和若干工会代表和反殖民地政府统治人士所倡组的人民行党也因运而生。

陈六使先生在一九五三年就已提出创办南洋大学的号召，而且已得到社会各阶层的积极响应。一旦华校中学生在接着下来的一年被组织起来，创办南大的运动就有如得了上万的生力军为它奔跑。中学生不只自己为南大搞义演、义卖等活动，还协助其他团体或个人为南大筹款。这种任劳任怨的精神很快就感染了东南亚其他地区，特别是马来亚联合邦的学生，使创办南大的基础更扩大，更坚固。

一九五五、五六年是反殖和维护华文教育运动蓬勃发展的一年。虽然殖民地政府紧接着就进行全面反击，连在“五一三”之前就已经注册成立的群众团体(如艺术研究会，小学教师联谊会)，也被宣布为非法，但是反殖运动的基础已经建成。新加坡华文中学生联合会或可在不满周岁就被封闭，学生第二次集中抗议可以被驱散，但是工人还能在工会被宣布非法之后重新建立起来。特别是受学生，工人和广大群众所支持的人民行动党已经开始运作，宪制斗争的可能性已经出现。

在和新加坡及马来亚联合邦的政党举行了一系列的宪制谈判之后，英国政府终于决定让马来亚联合邦于一九五七年八月三十一日获得独立，新加坡于一九五九年也开始实行内部自治。一个中学生为了争取一个安定的学习环境而起来要求在学时期免得服军役的行动，不仅逼英国殖民地政府放弃用亚洲人打亚洲人的幻想，还带动了整个马来亚的反殖斗争，使其提升入一个新的高峰，加速了殖民统治的崩溃。在世界被外来势力统治的人民要求独立自主的历史中，恐怕是少有的。其原因不外是运动进行得有理、有利、有节，而获得广泛的支持和参与。

我个人当时没有直接参与“五一三”，是事件发生之后才“混”进去的。我当时在英校念书，没资格参与华校的活动，是由于我的两个在公教中学念书的兄弟因参加抗议政府的行动而被校方开除，才被“牵连”进去的。本来我也不知道有甚么法令强迫青年学生去当兵，看到兄弟的同学们被殴打又坐牢之后才产生了好奇。我先去找在中华总商会办事的华校中学生免役代表团了解情况，然后设法在自己校内举行一个座谈或辩论会，进一步把事情弄清楚。谁知受奴化教育的英校生绝大部分是书呆子，只顾读书考试，争取领到剑桥文凭，离开剑桥考试还有近半年，他们已经把向外的窗口，关得密密的。

华校中学生后来在华侨中学集中抗议了，我的好奇心也忍不住了，终于走上了山岗。可是我还只是个“通学生”，每天学校下课之后才上去，夜晚就回家，只有周末才“留宿”。因为我是九号班学生，就被分配和高二、三学生一起生活，并且当上了他们的英文“小先生”。对我来说，这数周的集体生活是使我眼界大开，改变我对未来的要求的开始。我从此不再向往在英校毕业后去当殖民地政府的小官。

继续和华校生一起学习，开始成为一种很强大的吸引力。当我在中小学念书的时代，学校师资短缺，课室不够，分上下午班上课。但却给我们四兄弟一个同时在华英两种不同的学校念书的机会，增强我们的双语能力。可是这种沉重的负担也不能长久坚持下去。过了英校七号班和华校初中一之后，“两栖”的学习生活就得停止。而且双语虽能同时学习，却不能深功任一，造成“两败俱伤”。当时我就感觉到华英文水平皆不如标准华、英校生，所以当我在山岗上集中的“学生”们邀请我在九号班后到他们的学校继续念高中时，我的心就动了。其实，我很担心不仅华文赶不上，数学更是。心动的更深层的原因是数星期和华文中学生的接触给我一个心情很舒畅的感觉。他们的好学、合作与豪放，完全改变了几年前我在公教中学念初中一时的印象，让我要和他们长久地在一起过学习生活，从高中一直念到南大。这种向往或者更深的是出自我在英校所感到的寂寞与孤独。

学生集中抗议胜利后，从山岗上下来，我还到几位新的朋友的住所和学校去拜访。最后被他们说服了，在九号班结束后参加插班高二的入学考试，大慨是因为庄竹林校长的宽容的办学态度，我侥幸地被中正中学接受了。这次“回华”，不但改变了我今后生活和事业的方向，还给我在这路途中配了一个好伴侣。原来世界上还有像我这样的一个不彻底的英校毕业生，她也来投考中正高二，又被分配和我同班。同学们都以为他们所称的这对“联合国”，不可能是巧合，而是按事先举行过的“公投”而办事的。不愿意深入了解情况的就索性说这是“主”的安排。其实，两个从未见过面的未满二十岁的青年，因为大致相同的学习经验，不约而同地做了相同的“回华”决定，不是巧合，更不是“主”的安排，完全是因为受到了“五一三”的影响。

我在一九五五年初在中正入学的时候，正逢中学联完成筹组准备成立。“回华”的英校生，很快地被认出来而被提名竞选为学校代表。后来一路顺利地当上了执委会英文秘书。华文中学生搞学运必须打破英文报章的新闻封锁，必须和他们已经建立起联合阵线的马大进步学生保持联系和沟通。当时的华文中学因为缺少合格的教师，学生的英文水平是不足以完成这些工作的。其实，一个半路出家的英校生，也未必能起什么作用。记得每次“上阵”之前我都得温习一下一些有关的词汇，还带上了厚厚的汉英字典准备随时应用。还好很多演讲稿都是由友人（其中包括我后来念高三的英文老师，新加坡妇女联合会主席陈蒙鹤硕士）先翻译好的。可这也不能完全避免出事故。在中学联假快乐世界体育馆举行的万人成立大会上，跟着主席念英文讲稿倒是比较容易的，后来有临时动议，其中一条是谴责政府的。我这个乖乖的英校生从来就没有谴责政府的念头，在脑子里那里会存放这种词汇。犹豫了一阵，满头大汗了，差点喊出
"scold the government"，可幸主席事先有准备，在我耳边说出 "reprimand" 这词，才免了我“一失足成千古恨”。

就是一种要求摆脱殖民统治的力量在催促我们，给我们这些小伙子们不怕天高地厚的胆量，根据我们粗浅的认识去组织、参与和推动学运。就这样地我们参加了由各民族学生联合成立的泛马学联在吉隆坡举办的全马学生文化节，和在印尼万隆召开的亚非学生大会。同时也和全马各种英巫学生和文化团体建立了频繁的往来，促成了一批在马来亚独立建国事业中发挥推动作用的知识分子的出现。对我个人来说，不但给我多方面预想不到的教育，还让我结交了不少来自各民族的知己。在英校的那几年也没有意识到世上会有那么多说英语的“好人”。

中学联也给我一个接触李光耀律师的机会。从华校中学生要求免役代表团成立时开始，李律师就受邀担任法律顾问。另一名是陈维忠律师。在我当上了中学联英文秘书之后，和两位法律顾问的联系主要是由我负责。联系的机会不算少，因为虽然中学联已经胜利组成了，殖民地政府还是不断向群众团体进行反击，中学生当中的活跃份子不断被警方逮捕，使我和法律顾问的见面相当频繁。两位律师同时也是工会和社团的法律顾问，所以都是忙人。记得当我每次出现在设在马六甲街一座店屋的二楼的“李及李律师馆”时，主持日常业务的李夫人都吩咐李律师的秘书不好让我久等。我在工作上和李律师的最后一次见面是在政府宣布封闭中学联的那天。当时只有我留在设在加东维京申路十四号的会所内，正当我将门关上准备离开的时候，李律师走进来。他说他在车上听了新闻广播知道中学联被封后就立刻赶来。听我说执委会的成员都散了，他就问是否可送我一程。接着我上了他的
Morris
Minor，到了三角坡的福乐居餐馆前才下车。自己接着走完一条迂回曲折的路，赶往华中参加第二次集中。在那時的白色恐怖籠罩中，中学联会所肯定是受到政治部的严密监视的，感谢李律师把我带出那虎口。

回顾半个世纪多前的事，激发起一阵阵的思乡情，和对许多亲人和朋友的强烈的怀念。首先出现在我脑海中的是我亲爱的爸爸。他从头到尾不仅给我们兄弟百分之百的支持，而且还亲自积极参与家长组织的各种活动。在事件过后好久我们从有关方面得知，他曾经主动答应出学费来鼓励两名学运领袖，在中学毕业后继续念那时已经开课的南洋大学。当时，我的好爸爸的经济情况连过得去都算不上。家庭的收入完全靠他开着一部小货车到处贩卖每箱只赚两毛钱的汽水而得。赚两毛钱也非简单的事，因为像建在小货车不能上的山顶上的工商学校，扛着装满二十四瓶汽水的木箱，在爬完百多级石阶上去了之后，不但满身大汗，上气不接下气，而且还费了宝贵的二十至三十分钟。我们兄弟们在课余时候也帮他，可是在那个动荡的年代，我们大部分的课余时间都在学校参加活动，让爸爸单独去爬石阶。在这么恶劣的经济条件之下，老爸还那么干脆地答应资助别人！我们真后悔当时只知往学校跑，完全不了解爸爸的那种助人为乐的精神，没有出来和他想方设法。直到今天我还说不出，两名学运领袖因为事件预想不到的发展，没能接受爸爸的帮助，到底是好事还是坏事。

这些年来，长久留在我的脑海里的还有那些不畏黑暗的山岗纠察队，劳苦功高而又有能耐将便宜的“扛鱼”煮成香美的鱼粥的炊事员，善讲故事和朗诵诗歌的说书员，晚会上的“火车头”，下笔成章的声明起草人，坚强沉着的家长代表，等等。

“五一三”是一场大团结，青年学生为了争取良好的学习环境，起来反对当兵，不愿当殖民地统治者的炮灰，不支持亚洲人打亚洲人。绝大部分学生认识到这和自己的切身利益密切相关而支持或直接参与了运动，使运动得以坚持到最后胜利。在这事件过后，由于南大的出现，中学生就将学生运动的领导交给大学的老大哥而走下了政治舞台。

我个人在这运动中绝对是个得益者，尽管我在1960年南大毕业后不久就一直在国外生活，我回返南大母校任职有困难，也曾一度不能进入美国。这五十多年来，放弃了在殖民地政府里当小官的念头之后，我是在“五一三”精神的感召下，在一群群的志同道合的朋友的友谊和关怀当中渡过，在他们的支持和鼓励下顺利往前走.

到底一九五四年在马来亚发生的“五一三”是否可和一九一九年在中国发生的“五四”相比，鉴于我个人对前者有亲身的经历，看法是肯定的。显然，这是很主观的看法。但是，历史家要研究这个问题并得出客观的结论，也不是很容易的事，因为这些年来当权者为了显耀自己在宪制斗争中的功劳，不仅拒绝承认旁人也有贡献，还将明明是助他上台的人说是反对党、必须消灭的极端分子。这种“胜者为王，败者为寇”的做法还包括一方面重组并控制新闻出版事业，另方面大事出版“
白皮书”、“自传”来宣传官方历史。但是事情既然发生了，客观的历史家尽管得花多些时间与精神，最终还是可以把事实挖出来的。

其实，在新一代青年社会科学者在对新加坡官方历史进行修正的当儿，当权者本身也开始意识到历史的真相是不能被他们永远和全部地掩盖的。新加坡外交部长杨荣文最近在提到“五四”对后人的影响时说，“五四运动对新加坡的发展，也有着意义深远的影响。实际上，如果不提五四，是无法理解新加坡本身的国家主义的缘起和演变的。在初期，五四影响着所有的华社团体，包括商团和宗乡会馆、报刊、学校和学生团体以及文化团体。在当时，左倾是很自然的，因为没有一些革命热情，文化复兴是无从实现的。”还说“五四对新加坡的影响，在占了我国人口四分之三的华族的文化复兴中依然可见。它在殖民地时期为华人社会注入的生命力和活力，令英国人感到害怕，也对新加坡的自治和独立，作出巨大贡献。”可惜的是，说了这些比较公平的，给了五十年代青年的进步作为，少许的肯定的话之后，他还是要像放旧录音带样地坚持“经过迂回曲折的发展，人民行动党终于在同最初结盟的左倾共产党人的斗争中得胜，引领新加坡在1959年取得自治，然后在
1965年全面独立。”就是“华族的文化复兴……依然可见”的说法，仍然是官方的一面之词。在“五一三”前后创校和开课的南洋大学，培育了21届毕业生之后就被关闭；养育了“五一三”的儿女们，后又因南大的存在而得以蓬勃发展的华文中小学也不复存在。站在华校学生运动的前列的中正中学，当我在三年前参观的时候，在全校里看到的，尽是以英文书写的牌示，中文字却一个都看不到。

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=30364.1