Who are the real trouble makers in the South China Sea?China a main contributor to a peaceful and stable South China Sea China has indisputable sovereignty over the South China Sea islands and adjacent waters, as defined by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). This has long been recognized by the international community. Based on the principles of maintaining peace and stability in the South China Sea and strengthening cooperation with neighboring countries, China has been exercising self-restraint and promoting dialogue and cooperation with the countries concerned in a constructive manner. China's contributions to the regional stability are there for all to see. China is playing a constructive role in safeguarding peace and stability in the South China Sea. Peace and stability in the South China Sea are closely related to the vital interests of China, who benefits from the safe and unimpeded navigation as well as the regional trade links and economic prosperity. China cherishes and is committed to safeguarding this hard-won situation. However, recently some foreign political figures, policy analysts and scholars condemn China's practices as "the big bullying the small, the strong domineering over the weak.” They even speculate that China is taking the delaying or dodging tactics so as to dominate the resolution of the disputes when a favorable time comes. Such accusations are totally groundless. China insists on solving international disputes through peaceful negotiations. China is ready to negotiate with the countries concerned to handle the South China Sea disputes in a proper manner in accordance with the universally recognized international laws including the principles and legal regime established under UNCLOS. Early in the 1980s, China proposed "shelving the disputes and seeking for joint development,” which showed its sincerity and willingness to a proper settlement of the SCS disputes. In December 2000, China and Vietnam after many years of negotiation, signed the Agreement on the Delimitation of the Beibu Gulf (Tonkin Gulf), leading to the delimitation of the territorial sea, Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZ) and continental shelf between the two countries. In October 2003, China joined ASEAN's Treaty of Amity and Cooperation and signed with ASEAN the Joint Declaration on Strategic Partnership for Peace and Prosperity, through which the strategic mutual trust was greatly enhanced. In July 2011, China and ASEAN adopted the Guidelines to Implement the DOC, which paved the way for further practical cooperation in the South China Sea. In November 2011, China proposed setting up a 3 billion yuan ($480 million) China-ASEAN Maritime Cooperation Fund in order to bring about multi-tiered and all-round maritime cooperation with ASEAN. With its positive actions and goodwill gestures, China has been playing an important role in safeguarding peace and stability in the South China Sea. It could be seen, from the facts of the equitable and reasonable demarcation of the Beibu Gulf with Vietnam as well as the self-restraint exercise throughout the Huangyan Island standoff, that China as a big country has never bullied the small ones. Some other facts should not be ignored either. The US emphasizes that it does not take a position and is neutral in the South China Sea disputes. However, a high-profile US government official intentionally used the “West Philippine Sea” instead of the internationally recognized name “the South China Sea,” and a US senator criticized the normal bid inviting action by a Chinese oil company and accused it as violating Vietnam’s territorial rights. Seeing all these, people cannot but question what kind of neutrality the US is displaying. Furthermore, on August 3, 2012, the US Department of State issued a press statement on the South China Sea. The statement showed total disregard of the facts, confounded right and wrong, and made unfounded accusations against China, intentionally complicating the situation and escalating the disputes in the South China Sea. When seeking the root causes for the unrest in the South China Sea since 2009, in contrast with China’s commitment to peace and stability, some countries have been provoking discord and disputes and stirring up trouble on purpose. This must be exposed to and condemned by international opinion. China is the Protector of a Peaceful and Stable South China Sea. China's sovereignty claim over the four island groups in the South China Sea has ample historical and legal evidence. Certain foreign media are hyping up the "China threat in the South China Sea," claiming that China is coming up with its own version of the Monroe Doctrine in Asia. Certain state leaders claim that China wants to turn the South China Sea into a “Chinese Lake,” and that they can not allow China to “exercise disproportionate control” over the South China Sea, so on and so forth. All those subjective assumptions are clearly not true. China’s modern history was one of miserable suffering from colonization and invasion rather than hegemony and expansion. China adheres to the road of peaceful development, unswervingly pursuing an independent foreign policy of peace and a defense policy that is defensive in nature rather than trying to expand its sphere of influence. Never seeking hegemony is China's solemn commitment to the whole world. China is a committed protector of the peace and stability of the South China Sea. It has never claimed sovereignty over the entire South China Sea, nor will it expand its current claim. The Chinese people love peace, and uphold the principle of good neighborly friendship. Yet, it does not mean that China will accept its territorial sovereignty or maritime rights and interests being infringed by foreign countries. China respects other countries, and is willing to settle territorial and jurisdictional disputes with its neighbors through consultations and negotiations on a friendly and equal basis. But China’s legitimate rights and appeals must get its due respect and assurance. China has always exercised self-restraint on the South China Sea issue, and has taken reasonable and irreproachable reactions to the challenges created by relevant states. Setting up Sansha city recently was the Chinese government's necessary adjustment of the local administrative agencies, the offices in Xisha, Nansha and Zhongsha islands which have existed since 1959. Such conduct is completely within China's sovereignty. As an outsider, the US is neither a South China Sea claimant state, nor a signatory state to the UNCLOS, and thus neither justified nor qualified to criticize China. Posted by Southernglory

Who are the real trouble makers in the South China Sea?

Who are the real troublemakers in the South China Sea

PART     ONE

Globaltimes.cn | 2012-11-6 21:17:06 By Wu Shicun

E-mail   Print

Recently, some foreign media claim that China has become increasingly "aggressive" in the South China Sea. They even falsely declare that China has taken "provocative actions" to escalate the tensions in the sea and blame China for the "instability" in this area.
These reports are obviously inconsistent with the facts. When it comes to disputes in the South China Sea, China is not the troublemaker. On the contrary, some directly concerned parties have frequently taken provocative actions and ignited incidents, while some non-parties keep instigating other countries in the dispute, trying to push the multilateralization and internationalization of this issue.
That is the true cause of the escalation of the situation. The international media should not confuse truth and falsehood, be biased in favor of the conflict instigator, or deliberately ignore the great efforts and contributions made by China for a stable South China Sea. 
Who’s the instigator of rising tensions in the South China Sea?
Since 2009, tensions over South China Sea issues have mounted. It is related to the impact of traditional and non-traditional security factors and also the outcome of the interaction between inside and outside powers in the region. In particular, the US global strategic focus shift to Asia triggered the reconstruction of the post-Cold War geopolitical landscape in Southeast Asia.
Taking advantage of this occasion, some directly concerned countries deliberately consolidate their claims, trying to push the multilateralization and internationalization of the South China Sea dispute with the help of outside powers. Moreover, some countries outside the region follow the US global strategy shift to Asia to increase their interference in South China Sea affairs, which further escalated the geopolitical competition in this area and finally pushed the South China Sea into becoming an international hot spot.
Some claimant states frequently take provocative actions in the South China Sea, which caused the tensions in this region. On February 17, 2009, the Philippine Congress passed the Baselines Bill, which includes Huangyan Island and some islands and reefs of Nansha Islands as Philippine "territory.”
In April and July 2009, Vietnam government officially appointed their chief executives of the Xisha Islands and Nansha Islands, and strengthened their de facto occupation on these islands through sending immigrants, organizing public tourism activities, and other measures.
In March and May 2011, the Philippines and Vietnam took unilateral actions to explore the resources in disputed areas of the South China Sea. This year, on April 10, the Philippines sent warships to harass Chinese fishing boats which were operating normally in the Huangyan Island lagoon. Moreover, the Philippines intentionally ignited the conflict through illegal actions like detaining the fishermen and conducting onboard inspection, creating a standoff.
On June 21, the National Assembly of Vietnam adopted the Vietnamese Law of the Sea which places China's Xisha and Nansha islands under Vietnamese "sovereignty" and "jurisdiction.” The abovementioned and follow-up actions taken by the concerned parties in the dispute have not only infringed on China's territorial sovereignty and China's maritime rights and interests in the South China Sea, but also violated the principal consensus demonstrated in the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea (DOC) signed by China and ASEAN countries in 2002 and relevant commitments made by those countries. This is the main cause of the escalating tensions on this issue.  
Outside powers intervene in South China Sea affairs, which further intensifies the tensions on this issue. On July 23, 2010, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made a public speech on the 17th ASEAN Regional Forum Foreign Ministers' Meeting in Hanoi of Vietnam, declaring the high-profile intervention of the US in the South China Sea dispute. On November 19, 2011, US President Barack Obama proposed a framework for a multilateral resolution to the South China Sea issue on the sixth East Asia Summit in Bali, Indonesia.
Moreover, 2012 has seen more and more high-level US officials make public remarks regarding South China Sea issue, openly intervening in this regional dispute. In addition, US forces strengthened their deployment and presence in the West Pacific area, including the South China Sea. Under such circumstances, some other countries outside the region echo, follow or even work in concert with the US to intervene in South China Sea dispute through economic aid, bilateral military cooperation, participating in the oil and gas exploration in disputed areas, and other ways.
For instance, shortly after the Huangyan Island standoff, the US announced the plan to help the Philippines to build a new National Coast Watch Center; Japan, in addition, proposed providing more than 10 patrol ships to the Philippines to enhance the country's sea power. Obviously, these actions by US and Japan further complicated the South China Sea situation. 

Sin’s champalan Education System a flop

Now am I getting some attention? Our highly regarded education system, churning out robot like straight A students like a factory cannot be champalan, cannot be a flop. How can it be? Just hear me out why our education system is a big failure.

The flaws in our system are mirroring the flaws in our social economic system. Somehow the acts and intentions were there but the plot was lost. We wanted the best from our students. In the process we developed a highly stressful system that many students and parents are unable to cope with the pressure. Along the way some pressure were released to make the system less harsh. Then the wise parents and educators started to think about a holistic education system, the best in all fields to churn out the best all round products that money can buy.

What we ended up with are half baked students in everything. Academically good but not good enough to be trusted for top jobs. Good in sports but not good enough to win medals. Good in the arts but not good enough to be in fame. We forgot that not everyone is a diamond to start with. Some are rubies, jade, agate, moonstone or simply pebbles. No matter how they are polished, the agate, moonstone or pebbles will still be pebbles, maybe with a little better polished.

And the holistic approach is good in concept but bad in the results. Our students will turn out knowing a bit of everything, a wholesome education, a wholesome individual, but unable to compete with the best in their respective fields of academic excellence, arts and sports.

The less affluent countries simply do what they think is good for a child to excel in a specific field, be it academic, arts or in sports. Full effort, time and resources, were devoted to a narrow and clear goal, to be the best in the chosen field. There is no pretension to be everything. No such nonsense as wanting to be the best in all fields in one average child. Even an exceptionally gifted child will have problems becoming an Einstein, a Mozart, a Husain Bolt and a Bill Gates put into one. It is just impossible. No one has been so gifted in the history of civilization. But that is what our parents and educators are trying to do. I will take back my words if they really believe in a holistic education, an all rounder but average in everything and are happy with it.

The stress part is that with such high expectations, our students are really going through three educational systems in one go. There is the formal school system, the informal tuition system, and the parent imposed and paid classes in arts and sports. Are the children being stressed, or being cooked?

And the truth is in the pudding. See our education products in the real world. In the industries and professions they are not good enough compared to the FTs who did not go through a holistic and highly stressed system. In sports and the arts, there is nothing worth mentioning.

So, isn’t our champalan, bao ka liao education system a big flop, producing students that know a bit of this and that but excelling in nothing? We are trying to do so many things and expecting excellence without knowing the limitations of time and resources and the limits of an individual child. Many are just pebbles and will be pebbles. We need to face this hard truth and cater to the abilities of different children according to what they are naturally gifted to do best. Holistic education is good but has its price to pay. There are merits in specialized education and general education and not every child must be cast by the same mould.

A more deep seated problem in FT craze

The original concept of hiring FTs and foreign sportsmen and women was to use them as a catalyst to stimulate the growth of locals, to learn from them, to be better. And eventually, when our locals have reached a higher skill level and can compete in the international arena and win honours, the scheme could, I think, peters away. The intent was to train our locals, to raise their standards not to replace them with foreign talents especially in sports.



What happens to the quality of sportsmen and women in the few high profile sports like swimming, football and table tennis? You need me to tell you that they are now worst than before? Where are the Pat Chans and Joycelyn Tays and Junie Sngs? In football, where are the Fandis, the Quah brothers, the Rajagopals, the Samads? We can’t even beat a Malaysian state team when we were Champions in the Malaysia Cup, in many Southeast Asian tournaments. Are we improving or downgrading? How many international table tennis players, locals, have we produced?



The reality is that the dependency is growing like drugs. We are now more or less totally dependent on foreigners in these sports. The quality of locals is getting from bad to worst. This is a very serious matter as opportunities and resources spent on foreigners and not on locals would mean the latter would not get better. Soon there would not be any local talents left in these sports. The national football coach is another glaring example. We used to have Choo Seng Quee and some other local coaches. These are likely to have been buried and forgotten and nothing in the pipeline to replace the great foreign coaches who were imported to replace them.



What is more serious is in the industrial and commercial sectors. When we keep bringing in foreigners to replace the locals, we will soon be addicted to foreigners who will keep improving their skills and experience for the opportunities we gave them. Our locals that have been replaced will degenerate and become less skill and less experience less valuable and less marketable. It is a vicious cycle. We will end up with lesser skill locals and more skilled foreigners in our midst. It will come a time when we are highly dependent on foreigners and have serious problems weaning away from this dependency.



Having foreign talents to replace the locals have far reaching adverse consequences in the long term. Locals not given the chance, not given the opportunities will not be able to acquire the critically needed exposure and experience to move up the skill levels and professional competency. That is why though we are the biggest financial centre in Southeast Asia, our top bankers are always from foreign talents because we do not give our locals a chance.



Look at the political theatre, we have greenhorns and little boys and girls being placed in political leadership roles to learn the ropes. Not giving them such chances they will never be able to claim being there and done that. There is political training and renewal, but sadly this is lacking in the industries and in commerce and also in sports.



It is time to turn the clock around to train our own people, give them the opportunities to earn their rights to be at the top of their sports and professions. This is elementary, Watson! We are now bringing in inexperienced foreigners, train them, expose them, give them all the opportunities and resources to improve their skills and experience just to replace the locals. Is this not stupidity, what is? If we don’t give our own citizens the opportunities who will?

Own a piece of art by an inhuman artist, Mother Nature

Tapestry

Many collectors have built a collection of paintings and other works of art by great painters. None has ever own a piece of painting created by Mother Nature. Now you can own a piece of painting conceptualised and painted by the hands of Mother Nature.

The Exhibition is at NUSS Guild House at Kent Ridge till 21 Dec 12.

Sunday’s political trivials

Xi Jinping is expected to take over the leadership of China after the national Congress that is now in progress. There is a nice photo of him today in the Sunday Times, plus a few others in his team. In fact the ST has been introducing the Chinese leaders for the past weeks. A few distinct features can be drawn from the crop of Chinese leaders. These include thick black hair nicely combed and oiled, a white shirt and a govt issued casual zipped jacket on the outside.

According to ST’s China correspondent Grace Ng, these features have their specific meanings. Nicely oiled and combed hair signifies pragmatism, white shirt means rigid professionalism but tempered by a casual jacket probably meaning not too dogmatic and rather down to earth, a leader closely in touch with the ground. The whole package is simply a no nonsense and task oriented pragmatic leadership, nothing frivolous.

What is obvious is the thick black hair on the roof of these leaders. They must have taken the advice by LKY seriously, that leadership must be kept young and vibrant, not oldies that are stuck in the mud with their obsolescent ways of thinking and ideas. And they will maintain this profile throughout their 4 or 8 years in power. Quite a remarkable achievement, looking at Hu Jintao and Wen Jiabao and the whole team. They hardly age at all. Maybe the task is easy in a communist state. Maybe they think less hard or no need to work so hard and thus were able to keep their hair black in tact. I am really surprise that they could retain their youthfulness while carrying such huge responsibilities and load on their shoulders. Their hair only turned white after they left office. Jiang Zemin and Zhu Rongji were two good examples. Perhaps they lost all the privileges and the good life in office, no more free medical and goodies that came along while in high office.

Our leaders used to have some similar features, black hair and a suit of simple white shirt and pants. I am not sure if they have the same meaning as the Chinese leaders. Let me hazard a guess. Thick black hair signifies youth. White shirt and pants are often associated with pragmatism and even incorruptibility. These were the characteristics of our past leaders and today it is a different story.

Our political leaders entered politics young and with a nice black crop of hair. Heng Swee Kiat and the two generals are good examples. But within a few terms they would all turn grey or white, looking very wise and dignified. And they would stay that way till they are retired.

The white shirts have changed to something more casual and colourful. The favourite colour is pink or red. And designer jacket is often seen in Parliament. Oh, one more thing, our leaders are mostly nerdy looking in the sense that many put on glasses. The difference is that the glasses could be fashionably thick framed like celebrities. This could mean a more affluent society where life is more enjoyable, living life to the fullest. There is no govt issue jacket to come along.

The grey or white hair or no hair must be telling. Working too hard or thinking too hard to run this unique little island to be the best in the world. This must have taken its toll on their crowning glory. A little dyeing could help to retain that youthful look if they don’t mind trading the look of wisdom that came with grey and white, or the classic balding professori image.

I think the Chinese leaders are having a good deal, less stressful, and an easier job to handle. Or perhaps if they were given a chance to stay as long as they want in power, they would also look like our leaders, ageing wise men. I deliberately left out women as they are still young and beautiful.

Would China and Japan go to war over Diaoyu Islands?

This was the discussion topic that had seen several reruns on CNA’s Perspective programme hosted by Pek Lian. The participants were Tommy Koh and Lam Peng Er, the latter is likely to be a Singaporean too, Victor Gao from China and Takaaki Kojima from Japan.

The issue of Diaoyu/Senkaku is quite clear. The islands were seized from China under the Unequal Treaty of Shimonoseki in 1894 after China was defeated by Japan. They were war loots. The islands were supposed to be returned to China after Japan’s defeat in WW2. But the Americans was tasked to be the trustee, tried to return to Chiang Kai Shek, but he preferred the US to keep them in case he lost Taiwan to the Communists and had some where to run to. The US gave administrative control of the islands to Japan in 1972 after falling out with Communist China and the start of the Cold War.

In 1972, Zhou Enlai and Tanaka signed a communiqué agreeing to keep the status of the islands on hold, but also with Japan agreeing to abide by the post war treaties of Potsdam and Cairo. The sovereignty of the islands was thus kept in the back burner till it flared up again when Shintaro Ishihara hatched a scheme to buy it from another Japanese, thus sealing the fate of the islands as Japanese territories. China protested strongly against such a move.

On the pretext of easing tension, Japanese PM tried to con the Chinese with another sure win scheme, to nationalise the islands. Under both con jobs, the islands would be officially recognised as Japanese islands if they were executed. And China would have lost the islands by a fait accompli for not protesting.

The position of the two Singaporeans was simple enough. Please don’t go to war as it would hurt both countries. The neutral stance is understandable as they did not have any stakes to consider.

The Chinese position was also simple. The islands were Chinese territory and China would fight to keep them at all cost. China was willing to maintain status quo but Japan had pushed China to react and China would have to let the world know that these were undisputed Chinese islands. Not negotiable.

The Japanese position was also simple. It refused to acknowledge that the islands were seized from China and claimed that those were Japanese islands. And to further perpetuate its con job, even accused China for raising tension.

The Chinese would not fall victim to this con job. But Tommy Koh was conned all the way. He swallowed hook, line and sinker thrown out by the Japanese. He did not even want to dispute Japanese claim to the islands, and through his comments that was a settled issue.

And he tried to throw smoke to compare Germany and Japan’s remorse after the WW2 and urged both parties not to go to war. The official position of Germany and Japan, to acknowledge the war atrocities and aggression, was really a moot point and secondary in the discussion.

Tommy asked whether China would risk and waste resources and lives over a few pieces of worthless rocks. Or would Japan do likewise over these rocks. He forgot that China lost the islands to the Japanese and the Japanese was the illegal owner of Chinese islands.

Another point of naivety exposed in Tommy was his belief that the US did not want to see a war between Japan and China. Unbelieveable to think that he is a veteran in international relations! Yes, the US would not want to be involved in a direct war with China. An open conflict between Japan and China would be most welcomed. Whatever treaty it has with Japan, it would use it expediently to serve its selfish interest. It would be in a very advantageous position to calibrate its response, likely to start with lip service, then supply and sell more arms to Japan, and finally decide whether to commit arms and its military forces to the conflict, depending on the outcome of the war. The Chinese and Japanese would have to kill each other first before the Americans decide what to do, just like WW2. Let them cripple themselves, their economies, lives and resources. The Americans can march in as the victor at the closing chapters.

The island dispute is really about sovereignty, about national pride, about ownership. Why should China give up fighting for its own islands? Or why should Japan not return the islands to China without going to war?  Who is the net loser or gainer? Not going to war, China lost. Returning the islands to China, Japan did not lose anything and could lead to a real closure to WW2. Why would Japan want to risk going to war again with China by keeping a few worthless pieces of rocks, in the view of Tommy Koh, that it stole from China?

This is the real issue that would have to be settled between China and Japan now or later, not the apologies and gestures of remorse. Return the islands and everything would be back to square one and bringing about a full closure of Japanese aggression against China and the Chinese people. Is this so hard to understand? Why are the recalcitrant Japanese so persistent in holding on to war loots it took by forced and risking a war with China some time tomorrow? They are peaceful people? They started the war of aggression not only against China but the whole of East and Southeast Asia and against the US.

Sin is a great place for foreigners

'Olivier Desbarres, Barclays Capital’s Head of FX Strategy in Asia, is accused of going on a rampage outside his home and terrorizing workers early last month, The Times has reported.
In the video which has emerged online, a man that resembles the banker can be seen approaching the workers and screaming obscenities.

“I’m gonna go after you. I’m gonna burn your f**cking house down,” he shouts.

“You have no respect. You know what? You’re f**cking animals. Chinese f**cking animals… I have a life. I have a family. You break that, I will find your f**cking family. I can find it very easily – I’m a man with resources.”

Dressed in shorts and sandals, he is then seen grabbing up a large sheet of zinc panel and hurling it into the construction pit, narrowly missing two workers.'

I copy the above posted in TRE. I can only have great praises for this ex colonial master for putting the ‘Chinese f**king animals’ down in their proper place. And his bank, Barclays Capital has sacked him which is very unjust. He should be promoted to be the CEO. He has done the bank proud by standing up for his rights. And the low down workers deserved to be spat on for disturbing his peace.

Only in Sin could such ex colonial master relive their past glory and strut away with his ego intact. Their former subjects would take anything from them without protest. No wonder Sin is a top choice for foreigners.

How to make a daft Sinkie fart without thinking?

Is it superflous to even think that a daft Sinkie has the ability to think? It is very common to hear how daft sinkies parroted views or positions from the establishment repeatedly without knowing what they were farting about. Many don’t even know that what they were saying was actually planted into their pea brain without them knowing. It is all a case of repeating a position and after a while the lazy or mindless will just garble them out as the truth or the logical answer to a situation.

Take the example of the slightly better off middle class and their entitlement for admission into govt hospitals. The official position is that the lower class wards were highly subsidised and the better off should not enjoy the subsidies in the lower classes as they are better off. So they must opt for more expensive classes to spend their savings away. The daft Sinkies were told that if these better off people were to opt for lower class wards, they would be competing for the limited beds in these classes.

Very logical on first pass. Think again, why are these people opting for lower class wards and willing to go through the ordeal with less niceties and comfort? And why should the lower class wards be limited and not increase to cater for everyone who cannot afford to pay for luxury? Just because someone is earning a little more, he must be able to pay more and consume more, and his savings must be robbed. Many could have other financial responsibilities or commitments that they do not have the comfort of squandering their limited resources to enjoy a little luxury.

But the daft Sinkies could only think, sorry I shouldn’t use the word think, they can’t, they could only parrot that these people are depriving the poorer folks from the beds available in the lower class wards.

The same daft Sinkies would say the same thing about Sinkies who earn more than the arbitrary $12k imposed by HDB to disqualify them from buying HDB flats. HDB flats are for poorer Sinkies. The richer Sinkies must not compete with poorer sinkies for public flats.

In the first place the HDB flats are no longer cheap unless they are saying $500k or $800k is cheap. Surely $1.7m is not cheap. How many people earning a combined income of $12k can afford to buy a $1.7m public flats?

The second point, who are the people competing for public flats with the poorer Sinkies? Have they ever heard of new citizens? How many new citizens have been printed to join the queue for public flats, competing with poorer Sinkies? And because they were foreigners before, many could have been very much richer than the Sinkies disqualified from buying public flats.

Then there are the PRs in the resale market, pushing resale price to the roof, competing with the outcasts or mistreated Sinkies who happened to earn more than $12k in household income. These victimised Sinkies, not allowed to buy public flats are now forced to compete with PRs to buy resale flats. Many are young professionals who have no choice but forced by the govt to cough out all their savings to buy public flats or private properties against their interest, against the wisdom of being prudent and saving for a rainy day. And daft Sinkies would say where got forced?

Why should foreigners turned citizens be allowed to compete with poorer Sinkies and Sinkies not allowed to do so. And why should such a scenario happen when the govt could simply build to satisfy the needs of its citizens? No, the daft Sinkies could not see further than the tip of their noses. No, maybe they are just acting daft, paid to sing a song, or have vested interested to sing the song, against the interests of fellow Sinkies. Really, how many Sinkies are earning above $12k and still needed to buy HDB compares to the influx of new citizens competing with the poorer Sinkies?

Even the Angmohs are crying foul!

Finally the angmohs also cannot take it anymore and are crying foul. High frequency trading is no angel. And for all the goods they claimed to bring, they are really hogwash. High frequency trading is causing more harm and bringing nothing good to the stock markets around the world. They are the destroyers of stock markets and values of stocks. Many markets are appearing healthy with good volumes but in reality fictitious. Don’t believe anyone claiming that volumes are increasing because of high speed trading. It is a lie.

Kent Rossiter, head of regional Asia Pacific trading at RCM said, ‘You can look at the trading volumes and see it does a million shares a day. In reality, of the million shares you’re seeing, there’s not really a million shares out there for you to take, there’s probably 600k or 700k.’ I think he is too conservative. For a million trades done, very likely 80% are done by high frequency trading without any change of ownership, and creating a false market.

High speed trading doesn’t help liquidity: Fund Managers. This is the heading in an article in the ST today. The Bloomberg article said, ‘The benefits of high frequency trading in Asia are illusory and the strategies drive up costs, according to regional trading heads from JP Morgan Chase, Allianz Global Investors and Fidelity Worldwide Investment.’ It also reported that ‘the govts of HongKong, Singapore and Australia are considering the extent to which high frequency trading and other electronic strategies should be regulated’. They should not be regulated. They should be banned from any stock market.

The false claims that high frequency trading will provide liquidity, facilitate trades, market maker, and reducing cost are all bull. How could Asian govts be conned by such superficial claims when the damage of high frequency tradings have been the ire in US and Europe? The only clever govt is Singapore. In the last SGX AGM, when questioned, the management replied that they have not allowed high speed trading into the exchange. Thank God that this is true. I believe they are telling the truth.

High speed trading is violating all the rules and by laws of any stock exchange. It is unfair trading, cheating to be plain, when they are allowed to plug their computers into stock exchange system to monitor other trades and allowing their computers to initiate the best buy or sell to make a profit. As such they have emptied the pockets of many innocent traders and investors, including the funds and their clients.

Among the violations of high frequency trading are, churning, buying and selling with no change in ownership, cornering stocks or the market, creating a false market and unfair trading. No responsible stock market must allow such violations of their rules and by laws to go on, or they are simply accomplices to a crime.

The state of stock markets in the world is so bad that many are looking good superficially but are really in the intensive care wards. Like what George Yeo said, anything may look perfect on the outside, but don’t be deceived.

Govts across the world must not be deceived by high speed traders. They are not innocent and naïve little kids that brought their expensive computers to help a stock exchange to be market makers, to generate liquidity. The truth, they are out there to mop up everything in the market by unfair means. Responsible govts must stop the carnage caused by high speed trading and save their stock markets.

Calling the thinkers for Natcon

My earlier post calling for the elite to step forward to share their brilliant minds for the good of the nation is likely to prove in vain. Who am I to make such a call but a noise in the wilderness of insanity. I am pleasantly surprised to read in the media that Ngiam Tong Dow has stepped up to the podium to make the same call. This time he was addressing the academia, the place called Ivory Tower, where brains are made of ivory unlike the peasants that are made of mud. Ngiam is inviting the intellectuals, the thinkers, huddling in their Ivory Tower to speak up, to share their precious wisdom and knowledge with the govt for a better future for all citizens.

Then I was slammed right in the face by the comments coming out of the Ivory Tower. Read these words very very carefully. I am quoting them from the Today paper. Eugene Tan, the SMU law professor, ‘cited the fear factor as a possible deterrent for academics to speak out.’ My eyeballs are rolling. Eugene also said, ‘some senior faculty “frown upon their colleagues being involved”, …They regard such involvement as purely non academic and not in keeping with the academic norms.”’

A Taiwan born analyst at NUS, Lee Der Horng said, ‘he found it strange that compared to other countries, academics here are not necessarily thought leaders, who drive discussion on public issues.’ Think he is right. Ours are text book academics whose views and interests are confined to the four walls of academia.

Can anyone wonder why protest or demonstrations on social and political issues are often led by students and notby the thinkers in the academia? But could the thinkers see that the Natcon is different, that the govt is extending an invitation to all Sinkies to speak out and tell the govt what they want for the future of Sin? If the academics are shrouded with fear from opening their gold gilded minds, the govt would have no choice but to ask the uncles and aunties in the market and hawker stalls what they would like Sin to be. And what the uncles and aunties decided, the Ivory Tower academics would have to live with it, if they don’t open their golden mouths. Or is it that the academia is filled with foreigners and they rather not be involved in local politics?

Rogues in Malaysia medical practice

The message below was e-mailed to me by a friend.

         Subject: Fw: Rogues in Malaysian medical practice


                Beware of Errant and Unethical Doctors! Please read

"Dear friends,

I am a general surgeon in private practice in Kuala Lumpur. I would like to bring to the attention of the public the unethical practices of some doctors in private practice.

An 8-year-old boy was brought to see me by his father after suffering from fever, cough and vomiting for 1 day. He DID NOT HAVE ANY ABDOMINAL PAIN. He was initially seen by a general practitioner who insisted that the father bring him to see 'Surgeon G' at a specific private medical centre in Kuala Lumpur. The father at first refused and had wanted to bring his son to the medical centre where he was born but relented when the medical practitioner said that 'Surgeon G' will order some blood tests and will send his son home with some medications.

However, when he brought his son to see 'Surgeon G', the surgeon examined his son's abdomen and pressed so hard that he elicited pain. Then the surgeon told the father that the son had a perforated appendix and insisted that he be operated the same night. The father was baffled because his son did not have any abdominal pain prior to that excruciating examination but he reluctantly agreed upon insistence by the surgeon. About 1 hour prior to the surgery, the father suspected that something was not right and he asked for his son to be discharged. He then brought his son to see me.

The first thing I noticed was that the boy had a slight cough but he was very active. His father told him to jump to prove that he did not have any abdominal pain, which he did with great enthusiasm. After a thorough examination, I was convinced that the boy did not have appendicitis and definitely not a perforated one. I treated him symptomatically for upper respiratory tract infection and sent him home with some medications. The father was outraged with what happened to his son earlier but he was relieved that his son was saved from an unnecessary surgery. Professionally, I could not! tell him that 'Surgeon G' may have tried to cheat him but, in my heart, I knew that was the case because I knew 'Surgeon G' very well and had inherited a few of his patients whom he operated upon and had botched the surgeries.

The next day, 'Surgeon G' called me and asked what happened to the patient. I told him I was certain that the boy did not have a perforated appendix but he insisted that the boy was very sick and had rigors (severe shivering) when he first saw him. Surgeon G said the boy improved tremendously after one dose of antibiotics. In my years of practice, I have not come across one case where one dose of antibiotics can cure a case of perforated appendicitis. IT IS JUST NOT POSSIBLE! He also said that the boy's father was a liar and had lied about his son not having any abdominal pain. Well, dear readers, I am a parent too. No father will lie about his son's health because he would have wanted the best treatment for his son.

I suspect 'Surgeon G' is giving kickbacks to many general practitioners to send patients to him to operate. In return, he would pay these general practitioners for each patient referred to him. He would cooperate with the general practitioners to convince the patients that they need urgent surgery.  I have personally worked with 'Surgeon G' and I know that his skills are questionable. He told me once that it is alright for a patient to have a recurrent disease as a result of his incomplete surgery because he would then refer the patient to another surgeon to tackle the problem. He had caused one death from a thyroid operation and at least 2 cases of complications after gallbladder surgeries which he refused to admit fault. In his clinic he has medical books with pictures of dangerous diseases which he uses to scare his patients into accepting surgery.

I am writing this to alert the public that there are doctors who are out for money only and are unethical in their practices. It breaks my heart that there are such individuals practicing freely and fleecing off unsuspecting and vulnerable patients and giving this noble profession a bad name. The only defense patients have is to be knowledgeable about their own illnesses and not be afraid to ask questions. All patients have to right to a second opinion and no doctors should coerce their patients to accept treatment against their will. The only consolation I have is that most doctors, both in public and private practice, are still ethical and are sincere in helping their patients.

Please circulate this article to your friends and loved ones and lets hope no one will suffer in the hands of surgeons like 'Surgeon G'. Also, beware of the general practitioner who insists that you see a particular specialist in a particular hospital because he could be working hand-in-hand with that doctor.
                                                         

Thank you." 

 

The above message is an eye opener that we all must be aware that there are medical crooks all over the world includining Singpore so we have to be very careful when seeing doctors whether GPs or surgeons or specialists.

The flexible pricing formula for HDB flats

The clearest picture of what formula was used in HDB pricing was revealed by LKY last Sunday. It was at cost or cost minus. Though it was a general statement, let’s presume that it was construction cost plus a little land cost as the land originally acquired was at minimal cost under the Land Acquisition Act.

So the original formula is likely to be Price = Construction Cost.

Though it was not discussed, it was likely that after a while the Price was slightly adjusted to provide some profits for HDB. Thus the formula would be Price = Construction + profit.

I use a small p for profit as the profit then was really not much to talk about.

Then someone got an awakening. The CPF holders have a lot of money in their savings. They can afford to pay a more for their flats. Then I think the formula was changed to Price = Construction Cost + Profit.

I am now using a bigger P to equate a bigger profit being built into the price.

This went on for a while till someone got another enlightenment, like being struck by a bolt of wisdom, and the formula was changed to Price = Subsidised Market Price. There was no need for the big P any more. It was hidden in the Market Price.

Then more angry noises were heard and the formula was modified and explained in different ways. It was changed to Price = Resale Market Price with Subsidy.

Then more noises and anger. So the factor of Affordability crept in as many claimed that it was getting unaffordable. So the formula was modified to become Price = Resale Market Price with Subsidy subject to 30% of two incomes for 20 years and instantly it became affordable.

As price kept going up, the formula was revised to Price = Resale Market Price with Subsidy subject to 30% of household income for 20 years. More members can now contribute to make the price more affordable.

Again the price went higher and the formula was again revised to become Price = Resale Market Price with Subsidy subject to 30% of household income for 30 years. See, still very affordable. It was all over the media with the Housing Minister having his special pages to drum this affordability idea into daft Sinkies.

But this was not the end. The formula was again revised to become Price = Resale Market Price with Subsidy subject to 30% of household income for 40/45 years. 30 years simply were not sustainable.

This may not be the last change as the price is still going up. It is likely that the formula will be revised again and likely to be Price = Resale Market Price with Subsidy subject to 30% of household income for 60 years or 100 years.

Does anyone realize that the Cost factor has been missing since Price was changed to Subsidised Market Price? Yes, Cost is no longer a factor in the issue of pricing HDB flat prices. The price of future HDB flats will not be determined by Cost but by the 30% of household income and how long they allow the buyer to repay. It also means that the price of HDB flats, regardless of Cost, can keep going up as long as the salary goes up and the repayment period is extended.

This is called flexible pricing, or rubber band pricing, like luxury goods. It can go as high as the seller so wishes as long as it keeps to the 30% benchmark plus plus. The first plus is the household income. The second plus is the number of years for repayment which is inversely proportional to the Price. The longer the number of years taken, the higher can the price go up. The formula can thus be written as Price = Resale Market Price(with market subsidy) Plus Plus.

Where is the problem?

The basic in problem solving is to identify the problem, acknowledge the problem, then works towards removing or overcoming the problem. If all else fails, just avoid the problem or pretend that there is no problem.

The SDP has worked very hard, putting a team of professionals together to try to solve the high property price problem. They have come out with a very detailed proposal called Non Open Market Scheme to solve the problem that is on everyone’s mind. Actually I am wrong to say this. It is only in the minds of those who see high prices as a problem. Some are jubilant and celebrating the high prices. Where got problem?

LKY had said that his party has delivered the goodies to the people, built and sold housing at cost or below cost, and the people are now happily enjoying the high value of their properties, inflated 5x, 10x or even 20x. Such a great achievement, to make the people so rich cannot be a problem. It is something admirable to brag about. And the people are so grateful. This is even better than the savings in the CPF that put a smile on Swee Say’s face.

Come on where is the problem? If it is a problem, LKY would not be bragging about it. If it is a problem, Boon Wan, would have solved it. His remedies so far were not meant to bring down the high property prices, but to allow continue appreciation of property prices. The reality of price shooting through the roof may be a bit unexpected. But does anyone see any panic, any panic measures being taken to prevent the prices to go further up? They may be quietly celebrating the huge success of a housing programme where all buyers can look forward to more asset enhancements and appreciation of values.

Now, when the govt does not see this as a problem, don’t expect the govt to do anything. Only some people, mostly the younger people and those who have no properties, are crying out loud that high property price is bad. So, one say got problem, one say good thing to have. What will happen to the SDP’s NOM Scheme then? Redundant, unnecessary, uncalled for, unwanted!

Only when the SDP is in power, or when a think alike opposition party comes to power would the SDP’s proposal be considered. To the incumbent power, where got problem? Don’t come and ‘ka cho’ with unnecessary solutions that are not needed. Don’t be too clever when there is no problem to start with.

Alvin Tan’s punishment by NUS confidential

NUS Disciplinary Board has dished out their punishment to Alvin Tan, an Asean scholar, for posting his private sexual pursuits in the youtube. This has caused a furore among sinkies and taxpayers are up in arms wanting to know why public money was wasted on such a person that obviously have values and lifestyle that are unconventional and incongruent to the social norms of the day. Many were asking for the withdrawal of the scholarship and a return of all money dispensed to Alvin Tan.

NUS conducted its disciplinary inquiry and had since announced that punishment had been meted out but this was kept confidential. Is this acceptable, just by hanging a confidential placard over this case? This is no ordinary case and is of great concern to the public whose money is being spent on this scholar? Do the people, the public, have a right to demand to know what is going on, what kind of punishment was handed to Alvin Tan? Does NUS owe the public an explanation?

Or this is a confidential matter, a student disciplinary matter, an NUS internal matter? Is the gag order justifiable? Personally I don’t think this is a confidential anymore. Not disclosing the disciplinary action will only create more anger. The veil of secrecy or confidentially cannot be suka suka used to hide the ugly truth from a more vocal public that demands for more transparency.

Obama just said these in his victory speech

What is politics and what is political campaign? It is about America for Americans. It is about no Americans having to fight for a job with foreigners. It is about equality. It is about American children being given the best opportunities to be in schools and colleges.

Politics is all about the well being of American citizens. He is still speaking. He is still on the air as I type these few words.

Obama added that all Americans must have hope for a better future, that as long as they are willing to reach out, to work for it, there is hope for every Americans, better jobs for every Americans. That is what politics and running for the Presidency were for Obama, to better the lives of Americans, not foreigners.

Benghazi killing a just retribution

Now that the dust has settled and the war cry has died down, let’s revisit the killing of the American Ambassador Chris Steven in Benghazi, Libya. The Americans were angry, horrified by the bombing of the American Embassy. Actually it was chicken feat compares to the bombing of the country by the European and American military war machine. It is just dessert to pay back a little for the bombing of someone’s country because they wanted a regime change, and leading to the killing the Libyan President Gaddafi. Does anyone bother about Gaddafi’s death and the death and destruction of a country?

The attack on Libya was not provoked; a unilateral military campaign in violation of the UN Resolution Which only authorized the prevention of the Libyan air force from attacking the rebel positions. There was no UN permission to conduct air strikes into the country. The Americans and the Allies chose to attack another country for their secret agenda.

What about sending a cruise missile to attack the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade and killing several Embassy staff? A totally unprovoked evil and hostile act. Only the Americans could commit such aggression and get away claiming it was a mistake, a wrong map or outdated map provided by their deadly CIA. The Americans were not remorseful in the missile attack against the Chinese Embassy. Neither were they remorseful about the invasion of Libyan and Iraq.

The bombing of the American Embassy in Benghazi was just retribution for the Evil Empire. Just a token of retribution for the enormous harm and damage to other countries and the toll of human lives. Evil deeds will return to the wrong doer, one day, most unexpected.

My eye balls rolling

The MOM is tightening rules for the PEP or Personalised Employment Pass for top tier foreign talents working in Sin. According to the media, this pass was introduced in 2007 to attract highly skilled foreigners to Sin. Pardon me for the pun. The terms of the PEP are so generous and liberal that it must be a privilege to qualify for one. Now the change, effective Dec 1, only those who earn a fixed annual income of $144k qualifies. Well, for such an exclusive pass and privileges, this should be the case.

Why are my eye balls rolling? Oh, it was also reported that when the PEP was introduced, this group of highly skilled foreign talents needed only $3,400 monthly income to qualify. Wow, must be some kind of exclusive talents doing charity works here. A new lousy local graduate’s starting pay is already more than $3000. So all our local graduates must be exceptionally qualified talents ya?

Now I can understand why Sin is so attractive to millions of highly talented FTs, all queuing up to Sin. My eyeballs haven’t stop rolling. We have 174,000 employment pass holders working here. I don’t have the number of PMETs that are unemployed, underemployed, or upgraded to become cleaners and masseurs and nurses. I am sure these PMETs, if health is ok, would not mind being reemployed for $3,400 instead.

The Human Resource professionals need a rethink, to look at the local PMETs as a trove of national treasure. Many are well qualified, highly experienced, and would be willing to take less, the same as cheap FTs, for a job. The HRs must be able to convince their bosses that this group of PMETs is value for money. They must not forget that they are paving a way for their own future and the future of their bosses who would very soon join the Dad’s Army and become redundant PMETs.

The strange thing about the HR profession is that they never grow old. The top management also never grow old. So growing old and becoming redundant will not be their problem. They will live forever young.

Instant citizen, instant wealth

This must be the best slogan to attract PRs and foreigners to take up Sinkie citizenship. It is not only a very attractive choice, to live in the world’s riches country with jobs aplenty, there are also many advantages to being a citizen. Education subsidy, medical subsidy, govt hongbaos, priority for children education etc etc all comes attached to instant citizenship. But all this pales in comparison to the instant cash to be made in housing subsidy. But that is not all. Getting a flat directly from the HDB and selling in the resale market after 5 years is as good as being guaranteed a return of at least 50% to 100% of the purchase price, more likely to be more as prices of HDB flats have proven to go up in 5x, 10x, 15x and 20x.

The new citizens got the govt to thank for for this great opportunity to become a Sinkie and with instant monetary rewards in the hundreds of thousands, not $300 or $400. The govt has made it so easy for them to buy a flat at market subsidized price. The govt also ensures that there will be demands for these flats at market prices which often are several hundred thousands more. The PRs have no choice but to buy from the resale market. Then the silly Sinkies who were too hurried to sell for a small profit, and after two bites of the cherry would now have to buy from the resale market.

The most pathetic group would be those disqualified by the govt from buying direct from HDB. This group would have to pay more than double the price in the resale market for being citizens of Sin. And the new citizens must thank the govt for it, for this group of Sinkies to have no choice but to buy from them, to make them rich.

Instant citizen, instant wealth. Unfortunately some Sinkies will be intant poor, or robbed to pay for flats in the resale market. How not to attract the best FTs into Sin?

A pixiu painted by Mother Nature

This is a mythical pixiu, recommended by geomancers to improve and protect the wealth of its owners. This is entirely conceived and painted by Mother Nature, not a human imagination or creation. The lines are beautifully drawn and the pixiu is full of life and appears to be flying. Its body is covered with intricate patterns and colours.

This painting is one of my exhibition at Kent Ridge Guild House.

Wah seh, the Wen Jia Bao Way

China’s Premier Wen Jia Bao is accused of corruption by the New York Times and threatens to sue the paper. But before he does that, he did the needful. He voluntarily called for an investigation into his family wealth. Can anyone beat that? Either he is clean or he is an idiot. No one in the democratic world or free world would dare to affront an accusation of corruption and to open his own house for a shake out. Many would hide, run or erase all records or regulations that could reveal their corrupt ways.

Wen Jia Bao is setting a new standard for ethical govt for the world to follow. This is the new communist and a new world standard for a clean govt. Hello America, anyone there would dare to take up such a challenge? Check my family wealth!

Am I disappointed with SDP’s NOM?

The main thrust in SDP’s housing proposal is the Non Open Market Scheme, ie buying flats from HDB and must sell back to HDB. I think this is like reinventing the wheel and trying to look clever. No need to.

Look, the problems and unhappiness are caused by the current housing policies. 1. Not building enough to meet the demands of Singaporeans. 2. Selling HDB flats to PRs, in the resale market. This is a very dangerous thing to do if the PR population is not curtailed. In the future, many public flats would end up being owned by PRs. 3. Selling HDB flats at ‘airy fairy’ market subsidy price. Stop this scam and go back to cost plus pricing.

Just address these problems. There is no need to reinvent the wheel to come up with more ‘airy fairy’ schemes if the fundamentals of public housing are put right, ie building flats to ensure all Singaporeans can buy them at cost plus and shit away with all the market forces and market subsidy nonsense. Just build more HDB flats for the people and keep it for Singaporeans only, even in the resale market. The prices will stabilize and be lowered progressively. Owners of public housing must not aspire to see their flat prices shooting to the roof like private properties. But the good news is that all Singaporeans will have a roof over their heads and not having to pay through their noses and emptying their CPF and savings. There will be money left for retirement and some finer things of living. The flat would still have real value and no need to sell back to the HDB and creating more unseen problems in the future.

The Housing Minister has made public housing so complicated and confusing. That does not mean that the solution must be complicated and confusing. Do not create new schemes that would make the situation more complex and hazy. Just work with the current system, get rid of some of the nonsense.

The solution must be straight and simple. Build more flats for Singaporeans at cost plus, not that the govt must make a loss, but with the aim of providing the citizens, not PRs, with decent and genuinely affordable housing. Not the kind of flexible affordable housing that can be stretched like rubber bands. Is this so difficult to do? Think simple. No need to think clever. When a house is infested by termites, there is no need to build another house. Just treat the termite problem. And often the problems in a country are due to too clever people in charge. What a country needs is good men and not very clever men. With good men and good intention, many unnecessary problems will not arise, like the housing woes today.

How far has PAP deviated from its original goals?

‘This was the plan which we had from the very beginning, to give everybody a home at cost or below cost and as development takes place, everybody gets a lift, all boats rise as the tide rises. "We are investing to bring it up to date and you pay a token sum, the government carries the rest and HDB has been doing a fine job to give you an environment that you have today," Mr Lee shared.’ This is part of his speech during a Tree Planting session at Havelock Road last Sunday.

In his latest speech LKY recalled the original plan to give every Singaporean a home that would appreciate its value over time. This the PAP has done very well. In his speech he also touched on the pricing policies of HDB flats. ‘…you pay a token sum, the govt carries the rest…’ Is this still the case?

We must give full credit to his generation of leaders for doing what they preached and delivering them, cheap housing at a token price and appreciating home values. They have been there and done it. I think all the older Sinkies who have bought their flats during the early years will confirm this truth.

What is the new social contract?

The issue or trouble today is the mission of the new leaders. Are they still practicing the old policies of giving every Sinkie a home at cost of below cost? Are there Sinkies being deprived or disqualified from owning a home? Are Sinkies being made to pay sky high market driven prices?

The support for the old leaders for their good policies for the good of the people was genuine. Are the new leaders and their pro people policies gaining the same kind of support for the older leaders?

What do you think?