11/02/2008
Selling Alaska
Does this tickle your senses and thoughts? The Russians sold Alaska to the Americans for quite a sum of money in those days. By now the money would have been spent and lost. But Alaska still stays, maybe in perpetuity, as a state of America. How much should the Russian price it to make the deal worthy of the land that will be there forever?
We have our own equivalent of selling Christmas Island to Australia. Accepted that it was all a British deal and there was nothing we could do about it. The moral of the story is that you do not sell your land, the motherland, away for cash. Cash disappears or becomes worthless, or diminishes in value. The motherland is forever, there, as an inheritance for the future generations.
I saw this advert yesterday of this beautiful island called Sentosa Cove. I wish I have the money to buy a unit there. What saddens me is that it is for sale to foreigners. Do we need the cash? Do we need to sell the limited motherland that we have to foreigners for cash, like selling Alaska?
Even the Indonesians have better cow sense to lease their lands to foreigner for only 30 years. As a temporary short lease, I have no problem with it. But to sell our inheritance away, my god, what do we have left for our future children? Or are we preparing to migrate to the moon when we have sold off everything?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
Hi Redbean, I think you are missing the point here. Selling Alaska to the American and selling a unit at Sentosa Cove to an foreigner are entirely 2 different things. Alaska will be part of USA, just like Texas or California after sale, but the Sentosa Cove unit will be forever in Singapore even after sale to a foreigner, albeit the title indicates foreign ownership. The foreigner cannot take it away, it will always be in Singapore.
This Post is short, BUT, it is very interesting and even important.
Let's talk about mother(guardian/leader), even ancestorship. Mothers selling or giving child(ren) were either due to poverty or superstitions and baby girls tended to be the first to be given away. I reckon that when the girl grew up, even if she was not given away, she would follow someone else, quite rational on the part of the parents.
But, if the mother is rich and she sells her children just to get richer. What inferences and implications can one conjures?
The first to comes to ones' mind would be; the Mother is cruel, worse than beast.
The second will be GREEDY and vain. The third shall be IRRESPONSIBLE to herself as a mother and to the child(ren) as a mother too.
Now, mothers today are also suffering, some child(ren) abandon their parents when they become independent. Some, though not a common phenomenon, do go to richer/younger women.
And some children took much of their parents assets and migrate elsewhere to enjoy their ill-gotten fortunes. The Chinese call this 'jia men bu sing', translate into 'the woes of the family(ancestor)'.
What can happen to a family, it seems could happen to a country. And it is not only 'jia men bu sin', it is going to be 'kuo he jia you nun' meaning the country and the people have to suffer an (impending) disaster.
Any solution? Go abroad to look for another mother.
patriot
Sham... If I can't have it(afford) so they shouldn't have it . Greed anyone. what happen to 99yr lease?
how much land do we have to sell? the super rich can literally buy up everything if allowed to.
who started to bend this rule on landed properties to be sold to foreigners just because it is in sentosa?
are we so hard up for money to sell our land? even 99 years is a long time. i am not sure if this is freehold or 999? i mean if we are desperate, then some may be foreced to sell father mother.
hey, we are damn rich. no need that kind of mother. it is selling inheritance and heirlooms, and birthrights.
Wah, don't be so like dat. How can sell father and mother. Sell organs maybe lah, soon.
Private ownership is the best long-term protection against confiscation and interference of states — although history tells us that states more often win because any state can legally kill people who resist them.
It doesn't matter who owns an asset, as long as that owner is a private entity (as opposed to "state" or "public" ownership). It is not a matter of "foreign" or "local". Many Singaporeans themselves own huge amounts of assets overseas.
The sg.gov themselves have a large balance sheet filled with foreign assets.
There should be a movement to divy-up the assets of Temasek Holdings and disburse the bounty to Singaporeans, starting with the highest taxpayers first.
In other words, securitise Singapore, and hand over true individual and collective ownership of the country to its people (see my photo in top LH corner).
By doing so, Singaporeans will then partially own those foreign holdings. Singaporeans can openly trade their shares — sell it to Indonesians or hedge funds if they want.
Side benefit: since everyone has an unequal financial stake in the country, certain people will be driven to behave in ways so as not to allow the market price of the securitised Singapore to fall.
For those with smaller holdings of stock, they might be motivated to work harder and smarter so that they can purchase more Singapore stock in the secondary market. Great, this is TRUE BELIEF in one's country — and the talk is most certainly walking!
Therefore, if everyone pulls together (for self-interest reasons), the country, as a whole is bound to do well — economically, environmentally, socially — no one wants the value of his stock to diminish.
Foreign ownership? Forget it! If the country is doing well, no one, unless they were completely mad or desperate (a definite minority) will sell their stock. Even those who immigrate will hold onto their stock, if they can afford to do so.
Also, to act in the true-spirit of private ownership: the right to discriminate and therefore exclude, holders of Securitised Singapore will be protected by law from with holding the sale of their property (the stock) for any reason — like saying "I won't sell to an Australian", for example.
your assumption of statelessness is ahead of its time.
and don't forget the bumiputra experience when state land and stocks were given to the bumis. yes many sold them away immediately for cash and cry later.
That's exactly the idea: the market will punish those who behave irrationally.
If the ownership of those lands goes to the business community, that's good. At least those people LOOK AFTER their assets. And it wasn't "given" to them. The business folk had to BUY it from the people who got it "free".
Once the free market comes into play, you get proper justice. If you are good at making money by doing certain "correct" actions, then you will probably end up owning a lot of stuff — because you've demonstrated an ability to be a good STEWARD of assets.
The last thing the world needs is some broke-assed loser who can't even support himself to be owner and custodian of valuable assets. Imagine the disaster!
the current financial fiasco may be the justice you are talking about. but many innocent people paid a heavy price while the thieves and thugs are still enjoying their loots.
If they are in the market, they cannot be judged as "innocent".
They are in the market because they seek to profit from their individual decisions to choose to be in the market.
Therefore what happens to these folks is JUSTICE, pure and simple (but painful, I imagine), and without exception.
"If You Can't Stand The Heat, Stay Out Of The Kitchen!"
Post a Comment