31% and not 40%

My earlier post quoted Tharman's figure of 40% loss which was 2% better than the market's fall of 42%. Yesterday Lim Hwee Hua quoted 31% which was much better than the earlier number. The exact number is a loss of $58b. We have outperformed the market. Fund managers have been using this as a yardstick to measure their performance. Now that they have outperformed the market, would they be asking for a bigger bonus? In the same report in Today, it quoted the Kuwaiti sovereign fund losing US$31b out of a US$300b fund. Now that is just about 10% loss. Remarkable performance. We should recruit some of their fund managers and we could do much better next round. Just wondering if the Kuwaiti fund managers were local or foreign talents.

Myth 205

'Singaporeans like to have the Govt as the nanny.' Ong Keng Yong I will just say this is bull. Singaporeans disliked being nannied. The nannying was shafted down the throats of Singaporeans with all kinds of compulsion, for the good of the Singaporeans. That was the govt's excuse all the time. And then blame it on the people for being nannied.

$300k for a place in SAS

An individual needs to donate $200k to the Singapore American School to book a place for a child. A corporation will need to cough out $300k for the same place. This is above the $10k to $20k school fees. The demand for a place in the SAS is so high that this is the market price for the time being. As a commercial enterprise, this is a happy thing. The amount to donate can keep going up as long as people are willing to pay for it. The question is who ultimately pays for it? Shall such a market driven logic be applied to state services like housing, medical, education and the rest of the essential services provided by the govt, including monopolistic services like public transport? One thing for sure when this kind of mindset is deemed acceptable, a lot of profit. Who pays?

A tale of talent versus good fortune

Which is more powerful, more successful, and more real? With talent one can do anything. With good fortune, one does not need much talent to achieve more. Without good fortune, no amount of talent is going help and make one successful. True or false? Anyone out there willing to say that talent is the one that counts? The recent events have proven one thing. With talent one may be in a position to do big things. One can achieve a lot but also lose a lot. For losing, it is not the fault of the talent, but lack of good fortune. Blame it on providence when luck runs out. Without good fortune, we can see talents looking rather like misfits. Without good fortune, and when time is running out, or the wind has changed direction, talent or no talent, all will be found wanting. In such times, the latter will expose themselves immediately. And the more they hide behind the veil of talent, the more ridiculous they will look. I am sure many of the talents are having self doubts now and would wish that the balloon wasn’t so big. And there will still be some who sincerely believe the balloon is not big enough, and the talent tag is for real. The balloon will not blow up in their faces. Given such a scenario, maybe a better fall back position is to discard the talent brand and hide behind the supernatural, ascend to the next dimension of immortals and demigods. In such a state, what one only needs a little belief and a lot of trust. Would we be hearing anymore of this thing called talent or super talents? Or would one hear a sigh of relief and thanking god for their good fortune. But fortune comes and goes in cycles, like the tide, sometimes high and sometimes low.

I can't tell

I can't tell. What does this mean? It simply means that I have something to hide. But why can't tell me? Because it is not to your advantage. Because I am taking you on a ride. The costing and pricing of HDB prices cannot be a state secret that can't see the light of the day. Please tell us how the cost is derived and how much profit is made from the new policy of marking to market pricing. Can't tell, don't want to tell, cannot be the excuse. Like it or not, the truth will be out one day. The truth cannot be hidden forever in a democracy. It is better to tell now than for it to be told by someone else in a different way later. Please tell.

More leeways may not be good

Khaw Boon Wan is allowing more money to be used from the Medisave to pay for the high medical and surgical fees. Is this a good thing? Like the use of CPF for a running away price of HDB flats, this is will only lead to the depletion of the people's savings. At the end of the day, everyone's saving in the CPF will be minimal. When are the authorities going to look at the problem truthfully and cut down on the cost that is eating away at the people's savings? More leeways is like more wayangs. Disagree? For goodness sake, deal with the problems of cost and market pricing. Don't distract the issue by talking about the fat ladies and the irrelevants.

Celebrating Singaporeans - The Lien, Tsao, Shaw and Khoo

The Lien, Tsao, Shaw and Khoo The Straits Times also listed the above families and their foundations for charity and it is only rightful to mention them here. Dr Lien Ying Chow donated almost half his wealth to the Lien Foundation. And Khoo Teck Puat was reported to have 'left 30 per cent of his wealth or some $2 bil to the foundation after his death in 2004.' And the old great philantrophist like Tan Kah Kee who donated practically all his wealth to education, building of schools and universities here and in China.

Celebrating Singaporean - Chew Hua Seng

Chew Hua Seng In a way Chew Hua Seng is more remarkable for the amount he has donated to his foundation. $100m! His is new money that he has made recently. And he may not be as rich as the old rich. But his $100m foundation is a handsome sum of money relative to his wealth. Cheers man.

Celebrating Singaporean - Wee Cho Yaw

Wee Cho Yaw and the Wee Foundation The Wee family has set up a $30m foundation for charity, to help the less privileged, to promote the Chinese language and culture, to foster greater community spirit and social integration. The Wee have joined the other prominent Singaporean families like the Lee of Lee Rubber, the Lien, the Shaw and the Tan of Tan Chin Tuan Foundation. These are the contributions of people who have succeeded in their enterprises and returning something back to society. But what is more remarkable is not just this act but for a man who builds a business that has 500 offices in 18 countries. And he did it on his own, his way, without needing foreign talents. Wee Cho Yaw has proven that you don't need foreign talents to do what he has done.

No frills HDB flats?

Lim Wee Kiat and Lee Bee Wah are asking HDB to build no frills flats that are really 'affordable' to the young people buying their first flats. I can foresee a reply. If they cannot afford it, go for rental flats. Those are 'affordable' for sure. Both were talking about covered walkways and parks and quality of tilings. The intent is good but the direction is wrong. We can do away with some of the frills but the quality of the flats should not be sacrificed. The quality of the tile in HDB flats are not that great for a start. Going back to the 70s when flats came with cement screed is a big no. There is no need to cut down on the quality. It is all about costing and pricing. The most glaring example is the Pinnacles. When HDB could make profits selling them at the first launch prices, why is there is need to jack up another $200k each! This is profiteering at the expense of the people. And the mentality is that this is good! Just look at the costing and review the objectives of the HDB flats. Are HDB flats built just to maximise profits or for the people, for nation building? Some people have been intoxicated with too much fine wine to think that more profits is good. Think again. The prices of HDB flats need not be so high without even cutting down on quality. No need to price at market prices. If we mix up public polcies with private enterprises reason to exist, then we are no longer a country governed by the people for the people.

Time for minority shareholders to demand justice and accountability

I have been yelling for this to happen earlier but it all fell on deaf ears. The turkeys in Wall Street and the American corporate world have been having too good a time robbing the minority shareholders. They claimed that they were the supertalents and demand to be paid in gold. And they justified themselves with their million dollar or billion dollar profits. Then they asked the company to pay them half of the profits for their cleverness. It has been that way for many years. Now we are seeing glimpses of the so called profits that were actually fraud, doctoring of accounts. And the shareholders could not to anything about it. The sudden revelation that many are losing billions and the corporations they ran could go bankrupt were greeted with shock. For the millions and billions they made over the years, could it be enough to cover for the losses of hundreds of billions that are now being told? Would the turkeys say a word of sorry, or would they cough up the loot that they had stolen over the years? Nay. What they are now doing is to ask for public funds to bail them out. And when the funds came, again they start to pay themselves crazy. America is lucky to have Obama who is brave enough to tell them in their faces that they are a bunch of shameless and irresponsible crooks. And yes, cap their salaries to prevent the looting to go on. America does not need crooks, selling themselves as supertalents, to run their corporations. They need decent men and the minority shareholders should demand just that. The crazy days of paying the sky must stop. No more looting. Erect a few lynching platforms and hang some of them for their deceit.

Running in the big league

When our fund managers placed their bets on Citibanks, UBS, Merrill Lynch, Barclay etc etc, I thought it was a good idea. I still believe it was a good idea. Under normal circumstances, it was a window of opportunity opened for a little boy to enter the big league, on invitation. Even if the situation wasn't of the best, it should turn out well in the long run. We could be co owners of some of the biggest names in the financial world. Obviously things did not work out the way they were expected. Our losses were phenomenal. No numbers have been quoted except in vague percentage terms. The art of selective use of absolute numbers versus percentages has been honed to a fine skill in this paradise. My guesstimate is that the loss could be around $150b to $200b. Oh, let me be more precise on this. It is paper loss. And we outperformed the market and even trimmed our investments to 7% cash. Outperforming the market is a way devised by fund managers to tell investors that they have lost a lot of money but they are still cleverer than the market. As to the 7% in cash, good fund managers would probably have 70% in cash, not 7% or 10% or even 20%. What went wrong? On hindsight, we were in a hurry. We could also be too trusting of the Angmohs that came knocking at our doors asking for money. That was ok. The sore point is whether we have done enough homework and done enough to protect our investment if things were not what the Angmohs said they were? Placing such huge bets, in the billions, must be done with a lot of caution and hard facts. It is not betting in a casino! Everything is now water under the bridge. We would have to wait for the long run to recover our losses. There is this conventional wisdom that in a 30 year cycle, the prices of stocks and shares will outperform any kinds of investments. We will see what will happen in 2038. With the advantage of hindsight, any money put into the market today could probably double in less than three years. But the risk to lose everything is still there. The difference is that the risk is much lesser and the loss relatively lesser too. Many investors in the market have learned their hard lessons since the bull run of 1993 and the subsequent years of crashes. And they are still learning and still hurt by the present crisis. The important thing is to learn that old conventional wisdom may not always hold and investing with big money must be done carefully, patiently, unlike gambling in a casino.

A little remembrance and a little gratitude

That's life. People choose and create their own heroes. Kin Lian had done all the work that no one wanted to do. Everyone practically scattered and hid. Now we have two heroes proclaimed. And at the point of proclamation, they had yet to lift their little fingers while Kin Lian was sweating all over, and paying for all the cost himself, at his own time and expenses. He done it for free, at no one's prompting and order. Would the people remember him? Or would the media remember him? I think the new media would.

We have misunderstood Lui Tuck Yew.

All the netizens have misunderstood Lui Tuck Yew. He has explained himself in Parliament that he was also for the light touch of regulating cyberspace and not for more regulations. I am wondering whether what was reported was exactly what he said or it was just the nuances that came out in the old media. It is good that Tuck Yew came out to clarify his position so quickly. Cyber regulations is for the netizens to decide. This sounds reasonable. Unfortunately the development of cyberspace and the concept of regulations do not fit in the new scheme of things. Regulations in cyberspace can only be effective in a limited and control area, a specific site. When it is cyberspace in toto, you can't really do anything. Unless govts want to adopt the cowboy tactic of hanging the horse thief and set up a ruthless task force to execute it, pursue the violators to the keyboard he is typing on, and chop off his fingers. Just like hard copy literature, with all the regulations, the pornography, hardcore and softcore media and fanatical literatures are everywhere. If you don't see it does not mean it is not there. Cyberspace will have its own version of the whole spectrum of acceptable and unacceptable blogs and sites. They will co exist and each will find its own customers and followers. What would likely to happen is that every netizen will go to places they are comfortable with. People will read what they want to read. Yes freedom of choice. Cyberspace will evolve and the bees will gather where there is honey and the houseflies will seek where there is rubbish. Oops, like me put it differently. The kopi drinkers will go to the kopitiams or coffee bean stalls, the tea drinkers can go to the sarabat stalls or tea houses, the beer drinkers can go to hawker stalls or pubs. And the wine drinkers can drink wine at kopitiams too, instead of wine bars. Basically, to each his own. That is what cyberspace is all about. No more nannying. Grow up. Yes people cannot be tied to the apron forever and thinking that they are children for life.

The Shahibs have landed

Goodyear is here. And many more good years may follow. We have unfolded our new secret formula to take on the world of corporate giants. We are in the big league, with a big war chest to spend. And we need a new formula to prove that we are different. We need an Angmoh face to front our international vehicles to look more real and international. Don't get me wrong, I am not xenophobic. In a brave new world when a black man can front the most powerful nation on earth, why are we still sticking to the old colonial formula of Angmoh best? Have we not learn enough? Have we not learn any lessons from the financial crisis that is unfolding in our face? There is no short cut to success. The only short cut is fraud or deceit. In other forms they called it creative accounting or doctoring the books. We don't need to learn this from the West. If Asians do not think they can succeed without an Angmoh face, then Asians should deserve to be doomed. China and India have proven that Asians are not duds. Japan, Korea and Hongkong have proven that Asians are equally eloquent and good in the theatre of warfare in international business. Perhaps our colonial fantasy is still deeply engraved inside our psychic. There are some advantages in having an Angmoh face to run our business. I dread that this is the magic formula to live by. Someone told me that some of our overseas businesses deliberately hired Angmohs to give it more credence and respectability. If the logic of western superiority is true, UOB should have folded up long ago. And India and China will still be colony or semi colony. All the Indian and Chinese corporations are doomed. How is it that Japanese brands are household names in the world market? Yes shahib. Tea or coffee?

Nuisance complaint against Siew Kum Hong

'My ministry and the police are not intending to let that asset be debased by allowing the police to become a tool for petty politics.' K Shanmugam He added, 'The integrity and impartiality of the police force should be beyond reproach and that has been and will be our policy.' Shanmugam was responding to Siew Kum Hong's complaint that while the latter was conducting a street survey, 2 policemen were watching him and he was later told to stop his survey. He was only allowed to do so half an hour later after checking with their superiors. It seemed that the police received some complaints on Siew Kum Hong causing a nuisance to the public. And Shanmugam assured him that the police has a duty to investigate all complaints even if they do not merit an investigation. I just got two nagging doubts. Who would complain about Siew Kum Hong conducting a survey? He looks like a very nice guy, very polite and very learned, as handsome as any of the MPs. He does not bear tattoes or carry a parang around. Who was the complainant and what was his background or intent? I think all the mothers will let him carry their babies. Secondly, would the police do the same if a nuisance complaint is made against any MP or the grassroot leaders or anyone walking along the street? Ok, MPs should be safe. Low Thia Khiang or Denise Phua need not worry. Correct or not? Hey, Siew Kum Hong is also an MP, albeit an NMP! Was Siew challenging anyone on the streets or carrying a loud hailer blowing at top volume?

3 cardinal sins committed by taxi operators

Premier Taxis MD, Lim Chong Boo, wanted to lower the $2.80 flag down fare during non peak hours. Johnny Harjantho, MD of Smart Taxis wanted the 35% surcharge for peak hour fares reviewed. And Neo Nam Heng of Prime Taxis wanted the authority to allow the operators to use used cars which are cheaper and can reduce operating cost. After fighting so hard to get the current fare scheme to be running without too much objections from the commuters, which increases their income by the way, how could the taxi operators want to turn the table to lower fares? Have they forgotten about the problems of the past when there were too many fares and too many taxis clogging the roads, and long queues? With the current high fares and surcharges, they need only pick lesser passengers and work lesser hours to get higher returns. And with a better paying passenger profile, lesser taxis need to run the roads, and traffic woes will be a thing of the past. The better paying passengers will definitely demand better quality or newer taxis since they are paying more for it. Second hand cars are old and not worth paying the high fares and surcharges. And don’t forget, with lesser passengers being able to afford to take taxis, the queues will be shorter and make taking taxis a privilege of those who can afford it. And that should be the way. Taking taxis is a privilege of the more wealthy commuters. They want the convenience, not to wait and wait.

Notable quote by Wong Kan Seng

'Whether Mas Selamat is in Singapore or he has fled our country, we will hunt him down as we did before.' Wong Kan Seng said in Parliament

The independence of an Indepedent Presidency

Low Thia Khiang raised the thorny issue of how independent is our Independent Presidency in Parliament. He reckoned that the two key system is as good as two keys opening simultaneously, or two keys working as one. This has led to the call for a more transparent process in the excercising of the presidential powers. Tharman replied that our system is sound, run by men of high integrity and challenged Low to question their ability to act as honourable men. We are in fact in a very privilege position at this moment in time to talk and debate over the issue of how independent is our Presidency and whether there is a need to be more transparent to let it be seen that the Presidency is indeed independent. At the moment it is all about faith, the faith of good men in office. Otherwise the issue would not even be raised, that there is no doubt in the people's mind. Now, what do we have in practice now? We have a President in office who was a candidate nominated and sponsored by the govt. A govt's candidate, and walked into the office by default because of the stringent criteria that ruled out the possibility of more candidates being qualified to contest for the position. And he is assisted by a Presidential Council of eminent citizens, also nominated by the govt. It is only natural that the independence of the President becomes an issue. We are fortunate that the President has not been called upon to exercise his powers on controversial issues. If there be a day, the President's independence will not just be discussed in Parliament only. It is obvious that for the President to work independently, he needs to be independent or not too closely linked with the govt. And this applies to the Presidential Council as well. We are all familiar with the chorus, 'All the King's men.' Parliament also raised the issue of the transparency in the process in which the Presidential Council and the President would have to walk through before coming to their decision. This is still not apparent to the people. The other point that I would like to raise is the possibility of the two keys opening the vault in the middle of the night. Is that possible? Would there be an alarm system when the vault was opened, by two keys, but without proper authorisation? Who guards the vault to prevent such a happening?

Sharing our reserves

The reserves were accumulated over many years, probably from 1965 onwards. Theoretically all the old citizens contributed to it one way or another and is a minority shareholder to this money. Now that we are using the reserves to share with the citizens, does it mean that every citizen, new or old, will be entitled to the same handouts, ceteris paribus? If yes, are the old citizens being shortchanged or the new citizens just being treated to a buffet from the accumulated reserves which they did not contribute a bit to it?