What is wrong with Boon Wan's nursing home?

Absolutely nothing wrong. It makes perfect cents. Oops I mean sense. From the practical and pragmatic point of view, from the dollar and sense point of view, it is the ideal solution to land scarce and high cost Singapore. You get value for money in JB, and not too far away from home. For those who want to compute on the additional benefits, they can think of the cheaper shopping and makan and also the petrol to go with. They could save more when all these are added. Why are people so angry with Boon Wan? I can only sense one reason. These people are using their hearts and not their heads. They cannot think logically devoid of emotions and sentiments. They will only come to terms with Boon Wan's good suggestion if they can think like him, think of money and how much can be saved. Then they can be won over. Think utilitarian!

Who's next to be 'goreng'?

The new media has brought about a new dimension in things that will be discussed and things that will not be discussed in the past. The old media, TOM, has professionally chose to discuss things that they deemed acceptable to discuss and things that they would not touch for obvious reasons. But the gap, the things that TOM will not discuss will be discussed, thoroughly, roughly and viciously, by the netizens when deemed fit. Since the Mas Selamat's vanishing act, Kan Seng was the first to be 'goreng' by netizens for every flaw that led to the escape, including slipshod comments and gaps in the logic presented. Then there was a lapse until Tan Yong Soon told the story of his exciting cooking class in Paris. And the storm broke. But before the storm receded, in came Charles Chong and his 'lesser mortal' comment. The netizens were not going to let him slip away with such a heavenly view of things. Yes they walloped him. Yesterday was Boon Wan's turn to be grilled, not medium rare but well done. His comment about putting the oldies into nursing homes in JB was not taken kindly. Even his credential with a Buddhist shield could not protect him. They questioned his values on filial piety and gratitude to the parents. Lui Tuck Yew's dressing down of netizens as immature too got a bollocking. He thought he could get away with such a sweeping statement in Parliament. He could if there was no cyberspace. TOM would probably add on and support his comments against the netizens. But the netizens now have an avenue to talk back. Don't anyhow scold the netizens. They will return the courtesy. But the perpetual favourite is Swee Say. The netizens remember every of his comments and wise cracks. From his happy reading of his CPF statements to his upturn the downturn, were well discussed. The latest was his mouse that barked away a cat. The MPs in Parliament found the Tom and Jerry fable amusing, but not the netizens. The latter too had a good laugh but for the wrong reasons. Would the people hear any of these juicy expressions of views and emotions in TOM? Fat hope. Only cyberspace can provide the spices and colour on such X rated news. Who's next to disparage the netizens and be the talk of the town or talk of cyberspace?

Fallen Grace

The righteous and trusted have fallen. Once they were the number One Family in Taiwan. They were pointing their fingers at other people for being corrupt. Today, Chen Shui Bian, the Taiwanese President, is in jail. His wife, the former First Lady has just pleaded guilty to forgery. His son and daughter in law are also accomplice to the crime of money laundering in the millions. Trust and righteousness may only be hiding behind a thin veil of truth.

I posted this article on 27 Dec 08

Wishful thinking or wicked intent In March this year the official figure given was that Temasek was managing $185b of assets. If these were in equity or equity related assets and stocks, my guesstimate is that it would have lost 50% of its value at least. But the figure will be much better if kept in fixed deposits or less risky assets that are saved from the financial crisis. If the loss is in the 50% region, I said if, the loss must be made up from somewhere. I fear the money in CPF. Would the minimum sum and Medisave be further increased? Would the withdrawal age be further delayed? Would there be new measures to shift the goal posts? There are now more reasons to wish that our investments are intact, that the talented fund managers are doing well to keep them growing or at least not losing. There are more reasons not to change the govt so that the talents and the continuity will help to safeguard our assets and investments, and our future. The CPF is like a sacred cow. It is the people's hard earned money and must rightfully return to the people for their own benefit at the earliest possible time. Definitely not till they are dead or near death. This is simply bad. I have all the time this bad feeling, and I can be totally wrong on this, that there are people with designs on our CPF money. To keep the CPF for as long as possible to enable them a cheap source of fund for their own investment schemes. I hope I am wrong. I hope the real reasons to keep the money for as long as they can is really for the good of the people, in the interests of the owners. But should anyone really have wrongful designs, they must know that the designs are wicked and will do them no good. The first is the intent to 'sapu' money. No one should ever think of it as the CPF money rightly belongs to the people and depriving the people from getting it back is already sinful, if not criminal. Decent and honourable people who believe in not doing evil should never harbour such thoughts. The second intent to use the money for whatever schemes or things, may include thoughts of returning the gains to the people, if there are gains, may have some mitigating factors to lower the ill effects of the first intent. But if it is just to exploit this cheap source of fund with no regards to rewarding the owner of the money, it is unforgiveable. Seeing it in any other way is still a dirty thing to do. Do I sound like preaching or delivering a sermon? The rights and wrongs of such acts and intents are difficult to dispute or wish away. Do not have designs on the people's hard earned money for private interests. If there are, it is better to let the owners know and seek their permission and forgiveness. Do not temper with money that is not yours.

Where is the MISTAKE?

From New York to Singapore, from the global international crisis to national recession, where is the mistake? Or better, where is the word 'MISTAKE' been mentioned? The truth is that no one make any mistake. It just happened. Everyone is caught in a world wide tsunami that came from nowhere. Make no mistake about it. It is just a phenomenon that we have to live with, or everyone has to live with.

How much is $58 billion?

With $58 billion HDB could build 580,000 units of flats at $100k each. This is almost all the flats owned by Singaporeans now. With $58b, it could buy 290,000 pieces of Mercedes Benz and line up the whole of PIE. With $58b, it will be more than the combined worth of the top 50 riches people in Singapore. With $58b, the govt can give to each Singaporean family $100,000 in cash. How long will it take to make back $58b? At 10% rate of return on investment on Temasek's balance of $127b, it may take 30 years. But if all the investments can double their value in 5 years, then it may take less than 3 years. The faster way of recouping the loss is to go to Sands when it opens. Place a $58b bet on red or black and one spin of the wheel could recover everything. $58b is $58,000,000,000!

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.