Singapore beyond Lee Kuan Yew

3 prominent politically well versed citizens spoke about a Singapore after LKY in a seminar organised by NTU yesterday. Mahbubani, Cherian George and Ho Kwon Ping gave their takes on what Singapore will become by then. There were concerns and optimism that all the things that needed to be done have been done to ensure that Singapore will continue to survive after LKY. But the 'huge political vacuum' created by LKY's sheer presence is very telling on whether anyone can fill his shoe. To make such a remark, it shows that after all these years, not a single one that is being groomed is close to fill the gap. Is this what we called a very successful leadership grooming and transfer process? Why is the best and ablest still fall so fall short of the expectation? Ho Kwon Ping made this observation, "This is not a pent up society waiting for the demise of the strongman in order to overturn highly unpopular laws." He added, 'Rather, the Govt has the support of the politically vital heartland in its pragmatic, incremental approach to change, even as it responds to tomorrow's generation.' These remarks suggest that Ho Kwon Ping has a lot of faith that nothing will change and the heartland is all behind the unpopular laws of the Govt. I am wondering how he came to such a conclusion. My reading is just contrary to his observation. But mine is based on my own reading of the mood of the people and what I have heard and read. The very fact that there is great fear of a split within the PAP is an indication of the differences in the views of the current leadership. And if that be true, how big is the schism and would it be big enough to overturn most of the unpopular policies? As for the heartlanders, they are very reticent in what they feel except for the kopitiam talks and what one heard inside a cab. I have my doubts that the present heartlanders are the same heartlanders of yesterday.

Should MPs be allowed to have full time employment?

The recent case of Josie Lau revealed the startling discovery that employees holding senior positions in an organisation should carefully review their ability and time commitment if they are to take another important appointment outside their organisation. This is particulary pertinent if both appointments are senior appointments that demand more of their time and effort. A good reference point is an appointment like the President of Aware and a VP position in a big organisation. If such a combination is deemed taxing enough on the appointment holder and to be discouraged, any combination that has more senior appointments than these must be avoided, if not, be disallowed. The rationale of time, commitment and responsibility to wear two such important hats is obvious. Can they really do a good job without compromising on the quality of their work? Unless such a fear is unfounded. Then we look at the job of an MP. Surely this must be at least 10x or 100x more demanding and taxing on the MP than the President of Aware. And what make things worst is that many of the MPs are holding more senior positions than just a VP. Many are CEOs with the responsibilities of the whole organisation. Should the issue of part time MP be reviewed in the light of such concerns? How can such an important appointment be done by part timers?

Son versus Son

This is the gist of an article by Seah Chiang Nee in www.littlespeck.com. I agree with him that this is a good thing for the political development of Singapore and a maturing political elite. I can only hope that the contest will be a contest of ideas between decent men, between leaders of the people, and not a contest of how to fix each other up. Singaporeans deserve honourable men and women to be our leaders.

TOM showing what it can do

Two articles in the mainstream papers show how important it is for the media to take on the role of a watchdog for the people by reporting on news that are important to the general public. One article is about '1 man, 152 board seats'. The fact speaks for itself. No matter what the justifications, the only thing the public can conclude is that this man is of exceptional talent, maybe a demigod. Singapore should have more of such supertalents and we will beat the rest of the world with hands down. The commoners can just carry on with their routine jobs and make sure they don't take on more than one job, even if one is a voluntary job that does not warrant full time commitment. Another important report is on the pathetic state of the motor insurance industry. Both Goh Eng Yeow and Christopher Tan have done a good job in fishing out information that were there but not pick up by anyone or any media. Without bringing these to light, these could be buried for centuries to come without anyone being aware of what is going on. In the case of the motor insurance, accountability and the stick must be used to whack the guilty party, be it insurers, lawyers, workshops, drivers or even the investigating officers. Like Kan Seng said, go down heavily on the culprits and bring justice and fairness to the decent majority of drivers who have been made to pay for the crimes of these dastardly violators of the system. The govt owes the people the responsibility to clean up this mess and bring order to the industry. The crimes perpetuated by false claims and fraudulent accusations and charges are no worst off than the crimes of the loan sharks. I read the ordeal of Henry Phua, who had to be dragged into a long legal tussel and at times even warned as if he was the guilty party. He would have been guilty if he had no resources or the persistence to see justice done. And we would have another miscarriage of justice on an innocent soul. And the parties that when through the whole mischievious acts, apparently without any clue of the truth until the liar owned up. The law must come down hard on everyone who is responsible for the stupidity of letting the case drag on for so long. Bring justice to bear on the perpetrators of misjustice. Let this be made an example to warn those who still think they can continue with the game of deceit and trickery. The public deserves justice and must not be made to pay through their noses through no fault of theirs. I hope no one is sleeping on this issue.

What are Singaporeans being taken for?

The media had been inundated with spurious reports of cat fights as if Singaporeans are nosey people and have nothing better to do. And that cat fights are really something that is worth reading and talking about. Maybe there is nothing better to print or too much space to fill. But these are all so petty stuff in my view. It is just my view? The other aspect that is more disturbing is that after all these years of development, from illiteracy, poverty to a first world country, the mindset of a helpless, unthinking and stupid people is still unchanging. Did anyone notice any difference or agree with my observation? I am writing based on the comments and attitude coming out from Parliament. Every papa and mama in Parliament are thinking of how well to look after all these lost kids that never grow up and did not know how to take care of themselves. They wanted to set all kinds of rules to make sure the kids are not exploited or bullied in the streets. Even the little boys and girls who suddenly walked into Parliament also think so, that they are now the mamas and papas with heavy responsibilities in their hands. They fear for the safety of the kids, and the only wise thing to do is to set more rules for them to follow in case they misbehaved. Singaporeans are the forever never grow up kids that need to be told how to behave, how to walk, eat and sleep. And the lines are drawn very clearly for them. It is all for their own good. Without these papas and mamas running their lives Singaporeans will be lost, helpless and their lives in jeopardy. Thank god, or thank the papas and mamas, Singaporeans are so well looked after. It is also like when someone puts on a robe, he is instantly a well informed and enlighten person to dispense wisdom of the world for the laymen and laywomen..

All the hype about nothing

Not exactly nothing, but about 400 women in Aware. That is all the members in the association and the whole country is aroused. The main media went to town with something like 6 pages devoted to the association and recent happenings after non stop daily reportings of the grab for power. And even DBS has to come out in public to rebuke its senior staff for the gumption to accept the appointment as the President of the association. It is only an association of women for god sake, not an association of witches and vampires that could turn the country upside down or cast a spell on anyone that is considered enemy. Have we gone overboard over a none issue? Oops, sorry ladies, it is big issue.

Tea Party protest

The Americans are organizing a nation wide Tea Party protest against the govt of Obama for high taxes and high spending. For the size of America, the protest could easily reach out to millions of Americans and millions will be on the streets or assembling in public areas. Just imagine what would happen when they turn violent and go rioting? They will be out of control and there will be damages to properties and lost of lives. A highly dangerous thing to do. But the protest will go on in America like another Sunday church gathering. And very likely there will be no rioting except for a lot of noise and the people letting off steam in a boisterous way. Compare this with the dangerous cycling event that the WP was trying to organize in East Coast Park. Unimaginable. We were so lucky that such an event was not allowed to be staged, or else it could become dangerous to public safety and security. Now why are Singaporeans so dangerous and not allowed to assemble in groups of 4 or more? Basically Singaporeans are still a bit wild, irresponsible, reckless, a bit uncivilized or primitive I supposed, prone to violence, very typical of unruly Asians. Better if they can be caged for their own good. It will take years before Singaporeans will become civilized, to be like the Americans and be allowed to stage peaceful protest in the public. Singaporeans need to be educated to be peace loving and responsible. We need to learn a lot from civilized countries like the US. One day we will be civilized and will be allowed to stage peaceful protest. One day, but this one day will not be here sooner or in the foreseeable future. The thought of letting Singaporeans on the loose is so frightening. Don’t even think of it.

Are we capable of thinking for ourselves? II.

The example of the public demonstration in Thailand has been quoted as a bad thing. How could the people demonstrate in the streets, destroying public properties and hurting people, disrupting the economy and breaking down public order and security? Think for a moment, why did all these happen? At face value all these are bad, no doubt. But without understanding the background to what is happening to Thailand and how the Red Shirts were forced into the streets, one will be making a false or wrong judgement on the people and event. Violent demonstators! Guilty, no good, lock them up. Beat them up. Let me post a hypothetical case, say an event happening here in the future. A President Bum is installed at the Istana. He is not happy with a popularly elected PM and his cabinet. He incited the army generals and some groups to wear Yellow Shirts to demonstrate in the streets. He eventually forced the popularly elected PM and govt out of power and installed his own men as PM and govt, without the people electing them. Should the people then demonstrate in public about such an abuse of power or a violation of the democratic system of electing the govt? And if the people do demonstrate, is it bad, is it wrong? Or should the people just accept everything that has happened, do not break the law, do not demonstrate and disturb the peace. Peace and public security are paramount and under no circumstances should people be allowed on the streets. What you think?

Are we capable of thinking for ourselves?

This is the perpetual question that Singaporeans should be asking themselves. Or would they bother? The recent incidents of the Aware election and the Red Shirts in Thailand are two cases that we should be pondering. Or should we let others tell us what to believe, what is good, what is right and what should the way things should be? Let me start with the Aware case. The public was being bombarded with the following positions. The new committee are unknown, no track record, no experience, dunno what they are capable off, and more importantly, they may be up to no good. The only talents and acceptable people to run Aware must be the old horses. Only those who have been there have the right to be there or the right people to be there. Anyone who wants to fit in must be of the same mould or be acceptable to the old horses. A very familiar story. Why can't the public give the new committee a chance to prove themselves, the benefit of the doubt? Why can't the new committee ended as the better team eventually? I am not making any judgement on them without seeing what they have done. They may have different views, values and different ways of doing things. Are these really bad? Do we want to accept that there is only one way, one set of values, and only one group of people possess all the rights and goods and virtues that there is no talent left outside this group to provide a better alternative? Is change always bad? I remember some eminent people said that change is the essence of life. No change no progress. With change, there will be disruption and readjustment, but not necessarily bad. Give the new committee a chance. Give the new talents a chance. Or we have already prejudged that they have no talent? The fact that they could wrestle control from the incumbents proved that they are good and mean business. At least they are able of outfoxing the old talents in their own game.

Aware's new chief from DBS

The new committee of Aware is headed by a VP from DBS, Josie Lau Meng Lee. The team looks very able and respectable. Why is it that so many comments have been made which in a way have pronounced them guilty or with ill intent? Why is it that people only think of the negative, that these people are up to no good? Guilty before proven! Anyway, looks like Josie may not be able to continue with the appointment as the President of Aware. An official statement from DBS in Today said, 'DBS Bank requires all employees to obtain approval before running for or taking on an external appointment,...It had informed Ms Lau prior "to the Aware election" last night that, although the bank supported her involvement in Aware as council member in her own personal capacity, it was however "not supportive" of her intent to run for president of Aware, a spokesman told Today late last night. "We believe that as a VP in DBS, she already has a challenging job with many responsibilities and the role of president would demand too much of her time and energy."' This is a very reasonable position to take. No matter how talented a person is, wearing two hats or too many hats will definitely affect the quality of work of the person. How could anyone really think that he/she is so talented to wear two important hats, let alone 5, 10 or 20 hats? It will only dilute their attention to what they can do to each job.

Kan Seng has spoken

The police will be tough on protestors, local or foreign, who are bent to create civil disobedience. This is a warning to all who are thinking of creating trouble in the coming major events in the city state. Actually things will be much easier if a chip can be developed and implanted into every resident and visitors here. The chip can then be monitored and tracked by a master computer and linked to satellite technology. The movement of everyone will be known, who they met and where they are meeting will be totally transparent. The chips shall also have the capacity to immobilise the tagged person by the master controller when appropriate. A smarter chip can actually have programmes that can read the person's mind and any evil or criminal thought detected will trigger the chip to immobilise him. A team can then be sent out to pick him up. When such a chip and system are ready, the whole world will be a very peaceful and orderly place. Human beans can look forward to a safe and secure future.

Of power, freedom and money

In the debate on the Public Order Act the govt has made it very clear on its position on power and freedom of expression. Actually it does not need this debate to tell the story. For more than 40 years, the govt has been defining and refining its use of power to manage the people's freedom of expression and the people's money in the CPF. And all these were done for their(people's) own good. In the next election it will be good that these be made an election issue. All political parties should declare upfront their positions with respect to these issues. They should state how much freedom the people shall have, whether they can or cannot demonstrate or assemble in public, and also how they will manage the people's money in the CPF. The other key issue will be the cost of govt. How many PMs will they need, how many SMs, how many ministers without portfolio in the PMOs, how many deputies and how many deputies to deputies, and also how many mayors they need to run this country. And add all these together to get at the final cost of govt. Struggling opposition parties may want to make a case to pay the PM $10m and ministers $5m to attract better talents to join them in their quest. And if this is not enough, they should be brave enough to state that they needed more upfront before they come to power. I feel the people deserve to be told of the position of the political parties before they make their choices.

The appreciative new migrants

More than half a century ago many migrants came from neighbouring countries, including India and China. They were actually running away from poverty in their homelands. Somehow it was not possible to start anew in their home countries, or it was not as easy as trying out in a new country. The going was tough. But there was the promise of a better tomorrow. After a life time of struggle, some made it, some didn’t. Some made it in one generation, some took more. Some never. Fast forward, we are seeing new batches of migrants landing on our shores. They too were looking for a better tomorrow. Some were hungry, some not so. But their conditions were never like those who came earlier. The island is much richer, with better infrastructure and a more conducive socio economic environment to start a new life. Many quickly find success in double quick time, with govt assistance and a more level playing field. They are grateful for the new opportunities. So were the migrants of the past. Why are the locals, who were migrants once, feel left out and less happy with the situation? Or do they? I think many just do not bother. Any expression of unhappiness is likely to be personal and not a common reaction of the populace. Neither is the unhappiness that serious a matter that will be troubling to the policy makers. The govt is reviving the grateful migrants formula and will ride on their votes to power again. Equal opportunities for all, new and old citizens. New migrants will become old migrants and the cycle will be repeated again and again.

Criticism of Public Order Act 2009

Why so many criticisms against the Public Order Act? The law is for the good of the people, to protect the people. Singaporeans should welcome more of such laws that are good for them, ala GST. When things are done for the good of the people the people should be happy and accept them with open arms. Criticisms of good acts and intention are misplaced. My only concern is that what if these good laws were abused by a rogue govt or rogue enforcers of the law? Yes, Sylvia Lim is right on this, that it can become draconian. But with good leaders in charge, everything will be fine. Let's pray that we will forever be blessed with good leaders.

Falling in the line of duty

In three months, he had done so much and touched the hearts of many in DBS. Richard Stanley, the well liked and respected CEO of DBS succumbed to more complications and passed away after months of chemotherapy treatment. And from the flood of obituary in the ST, in his short stay in office he must have won the hearts of many. From peers, associates, business partners and union leaders, and all the staff, only good words were spoken of Richard Stanley. DBS also marked his demise with a one minute silence at 2.45pm yesterday. Richard is the first foreign talent that fell while on duty. He came on board and the minibond crisis fell on his lap. He must have gone through agonising time to tackle this crisis and this must have taken its toll on him. Richard was called home at the prime of his life. He could have done much more for DBS and its staff. But when God calls, it is time to go home.

An IM for food hygiene and handling

The criticism is piling up. Now the target is National Environment Agency. Letters were written to the media and the usual is that it cannot happen here. We are the best, first world, world class talents and salaries. This kind of mass food poisoning can only happen to poorly managed developing countries. It is shocking, alarming. What have the NEA done? We need a hero to resolve this crisis. I think Tan Yong Soon is cut out for this job. He should put what he learnt in Paris to good use. Come out with an Instructional Manual on food hygiene and handling for kitchens and food handlers and the cooks. His culinary course must have included these as a major part of the syllabus. The quality and cleanliness of food, utensil, equipment and people are very important to produce good and safe food. Let's have a comprehensive IM for all the hawker stalls, markets and food courts. Or perhaps privatise them would also do. The standard of cleanliness should also improved with privatisation. And if they pay the food handlers and cooks better, better qualified people will become hawkers in markets and food courts. But don't suggest sending them to Paris, please.

What a genius!

What an ingenious idea! This appeared in the St. Petersburg Times Newspaper yesterday. TheBusiness Section had asked readers all week for ideas on "HOW WOULD YOU FIX THE ECONOMY?" This man nailed it. Dear Mr. President, Patriotic retirement: There's about 40 million people over 50 years old in the work force - pay them $1 million apiece severance with the following stipulations: 1) They leave their jobs. Forty million job openings - UNEMPLOYMENT FIXED 2) They buy NEW American cars. Forty million cars ordered - AUTO INDUSTRY FIXED. 3) They either buy a house or pay off their mortgage - HOUSING CRISIS FIXED. Like I have been saying, they are bailing out the wrong people. We can modify this solution and it would not cost that much. And the govt will definitely be returned to power in the next GE.

Fear is in the air

Since the brilliant grab for power in Aware, there have been many postings questioning the group and its intention. There were many speculations and even talks of bigger things to come and bigger organisations to capture. Why should there be fear as long as the group is legitimate and not criminal? In a democracy, it is all about organisation. The people with the resources and organisation skills will be in a better position to grab power, and then grab anything they want. And with morality at its most perplexing time, when rights and wrongs are all grey, who shall stand on high moral grounds to be the judge of who is good or bad? Let the contest of ideas, organisation, ability and talent begins. And winners take all. Everything is up for grabs to the talented and well organised.

My feedback to the Stock Exchange in June 2005

The Relevance and Effectiveness of Corporate Governance I will like to express my appreciation to the Stock Exchange for asking the public for feedback to improve the trading system. I will just touch on three issues here, A. Corporate Governance and Independent Directors, B. Responsibilities and Accountability of Issue Managers/Auditors, and C. The Roles of SGX as a Regulator and a Business Concern. A. Corporate Governance and Independent Directors Independent Directors can play a very important role in ensuring that companies are proper and professional in the conduct of their businesses. By being involved, and being hands on with company operations, the Independent Directors are by far the most suitable candidates to help in ensuring compliance and due diligence in all corporate matters. However, the current procedures and system of appointing Independent Directors are seriously flawed. It is not the numbers that matter, but how Independent Directors are being appointed to the Board of Companies. When companies and their management staff have the sole prerogative to appoint Independent Directors, when the remuneration and tenure of Independent Directors are dependent on the goodwill of company management, how independent can Independent Directors be? Like it or not, Independent Directors have vested interests to maintain a cordial relationship with the company’s management and even major shareholders. There is thus a need to balance the opposing demands to oversee company operations in a professional manner and, on the other hand, to be acceptable to company management so as to be nominated to the board again. Independent Directors who are too thorough, too demanding, or even becoming whistle blowers, will soon work themselves out of all company boards. They will carry their reputations along with them and will not be appointed to any boards in a matter of time. No whistle blowers can ever hope to be invited to sit in any organizations. They can blow their whistles only once. In order to maintain as ‘correct’ a relationship as possible, and to improve the chances of being reappointed, Independent Directors may have to compromise their positions, and may even restrain themselves in the execution of their duties, thus undermining their roles as the watchdog of company wrongdoings. Recommendation 1 A new procedure to appoint Independent Directors is obviously needed. Independent Directors must be appointed independent of company management. Those appointed by company management have a credibility problem. There will always be a doubt as to whether they can be truly independent if their benefactors are the company management. It is a practical and real issue. The setting up of an unrelated independent body to appoint Independent Directors to company boards is a prerequisite to impartiality and transparency. The position of Independent Directors must not be compromise in anyway if they are to do a proper job. Otherwise it is a fallacy to believe that Independent Directors are really independent. What good is there if all the Independent Directors are either the relatives, friends or drinking kakis of the management, chosen and paid for by the management? A possible candidate to take on this task is the Stock Exchange itself. Or alternatively the Securities Investors Association of Singapore, SIAS, can be appointed by SGX/MAS to assume this role. SIAS is an ideal candidate as it is the representative of small investors who, as a group, represented quite a substantial interest in companies listed in the SGX. The small investors have so far been the victims of all these corporate frauds, and it is time that their interests be taken care of. Independent Directors selected and appointed by an organization representing small investors could fit in this role nicely. No other organization can claim to represent the small investors and to defend their interests. By giving SIAS a bigger role in this area, SGX and MAS can then be seen to be fair to the small investors. For the Independent Directors to be effective, three Independent Directors should come from SIAS and be represented in the Nomination, Remuneration and Audit Committees of the Companies. These committees shall provide the Independent Directors with access to information that affects the health and wealth of the companies. SIAS can set up a department to select, train and appoint Independent Directors under a set of guidelines that best served to protect the interests of small investors, and in the process self regulate company operations and management to comply with SGX regulations and good governance. An added feature is for SGX to emphasise the responsibilities and accountability on all Independent as well as non Independent Directors. Appointment to company boards must not be seen as a birthday party, but a serious undertaking that demands professionalism and integrity. All directors, including Independent Directors, shall be held accountable for negligence, wrongdoings or not doing their due diligence while on the boards. They must be made aware that they are holding in trust the interests of all investors, large and small, and must not be found wanting, or they will be taken to task. They are paid to do a job and this comes with a heavy responsibility. B. Responsibilities and Accountability of Issue Managers and Auditors Issue Managers are the key people who promote and market a company to investors resulting in large sums of monies being invested by the public. The Issue Managers and their associates, especially the management and finance professionals, are the people in the know. They are also the people who prepare the company operations and financial reports. How truthful, accurate and proper are these reports will solely be dependent on the professionalism, trustworthiness and integrity of these professional people. The investors, including professional fund managers, are likely to make their decisions based on these reports and the presentation of the company by the Issue Managers and the management. It is accepted that Issue Managers/Auditors and company management will want to present the best picture they can to the investors. It is their task to sell the company. What the investors and regulators can hope for is that these people are truthful and professional in the packaging and marketing of the companies. They are expected to do their due diligence. They are not expected to make misrepresentation of the companies, or worst, make fraudulent reports to deceive the investors into investing in unsound companies. Recommendation 2 Nothing short of accountability and making good of what the Issue Managers/Auditors and company management made their companies out to be. Caveat emptor is not enough. When there are misrepresentations or wrongdoings, the guilty parties must be dealt with severely. Full restitutions for losses must be made to compensate the innocent investors. The public must not be put in a position where they are at the mercy of Issue Managers/Auditors and company management without any recourse. It is inadequate and unfair when a public issue goes drastically wrong due to negligence or misrepresentation and caveat emptor becomes a convenient excuse. Issue Managers/Auditors and company managers must all be aware of the severity of their actions and the recourse of criminal proceedings if they are found to commit wrongdoings or negligence in the course of listing the companies. The SGX has a duty to protect the public investors. C. Role of SGX as a Regulator and as a Business Concern SGX is now a private company with profit making as a primary objective. Its other role as a regulator is now incompatible with its new status. There is a conflict of interests and the two functions must be detached and managed separately. SGX cannot function as a player as well as a referee in the same game. It cannot be objective when it is also involved in generating profits for itself from the system. Even if it does try to be objective, other parties may not perceive it in the same way. Its dual roles only complicate matters further and will undermine the credibility of SGX. People will always be skeptical of whatever actions or decisions it takes that affect the players and the market. Recommendation 3 For transparency and good business practice, SGX may want to consider relinquishing its role as the regulator of the stock market. An independent agency shall replace SGX to ensure that there is fair play and a level playing field for all the players. No matter how impartial or above board SGX can be, it is in the best interest of SGX for it to be monitored separately. This is to avoid being accused of any complicity whenever a decision is seen to be doubtful in the eyes of the public. An interested party can never be objective in its own dealings. A Side Issue I must raise this issue though it is not directly related to the above. It is very serious and it is affecting the viability of the stock market and the stockbroking industry if nothing is done to arrest the problem. I will make it very short and brief. Before the liberalization of the industry, foreign funds must trade through local broking houses, paying commission for their trades. With liberalization, these huge funds can now trade on their own by setting up offices here. And trade they did at no commission. What this means is that they could literally trade in hundreds of millions of dollars worth of stocks at practically no cost other than the minimal clearing fees and GST. They could thus push stocks up or down at their whims and fancy, making profits at the expense of small investors and traders. The big trading volumes we are seeing daily are thus fictitious. We have replaced syndicate trading of the past with fund manipulations at a more vicious scale. With syndicate trading activities, at least they still pay some commission that will somehow filter back to lubricate the system. With big fund trading today (including proprietary trading), no commission of such nature will be generated. If syndicate trading activities were seen as an undesirable and criminal act, how can we justify fund manipulations as legitimate and desirable, and at no cost? When all the small players and traders are wiped out from the market, when there are no more money to be made from the market, these big funds could just wind up their activities over night, and we will have a ghost town, a stock market devoid of trading activities. It will lead to an immediate collapse of the stockbroking industry. The scenario that I have painted may have been too extreme. But the possibility of it becoming a reality is very real. We have already witnessed the first phase of casualties, the small traders. Most of them have lost their pants or are too fearful to reenter the market. What the SGX may want to consider is to provide a level playing field for the big boys to play. Let the fund/broking houses, the proprietary traders and the private syndicates be the market movers on equal terms. Let them rejuvenate the market and trade within the existing rules. But the terms given to these players shall not be vastly different from the small players and investors. A special levy comes into mind.

When privatisation is a fear word

Privatisation used to be the key word to symbolise improved efficiency, better quality of products and services and a necessary evil, higher cost. The last part is always unspoken. No body wants to talk about it. Two letters by Ang Ah Ho and Zhuang Kuan Seng in the Sunday Times were literary pleading for mercy against HDB and privatisation. They questioned the role and responsibility of HDB in a tender exercise for Sengkang wet market. It went to the highest bidder, Renaissance Properties, at $500,001 pm. All these make business sense as the new tenants will definitely improve the efficiency of running the wet market as well as improving the quality and services. The residents only see fear of higher cost of basic food that they will get from the market. And they were concerned even in the way HDB framed its reply in a nonchalant way. But they were barking up the wrong tree. HDB is no more a govt organisation. It is privatised, just like the wet market is going to be. And profit is one of its key goals. They must remember how the second batch of Duxton Pinnacles flat owners have to cough out another $200k for each unit because the prices of similar flats have gone up. The residents in Sengkang should look at the brighter and positive side of things. Life style will improve with new concepts in wet marketing. The fish, meat and vegetables will be fresher and of better quality. And the stall holders will probably say thank you when they buy from them. And the higher cost of living is just part of the deal. It has to be. But it will be very affordable. All new housing estates have better quality food courts than the heart of Raffles Place and Chinatown. The food centres at Golden Shoe, Hong Lim and Chinatown are much cheaper, $2.50 can get one a bowl of noodle or rice, mixed vegetable rice or chicken rice. But the quality must be not so good as the food courts at HDB estates, and no aircon some more. Soon everyone will be frequenting food courts in HDB estates. I pray and pray that these hawker centres will not be privatised. Personally the quality of their food, at $2.50, is damn good. But I am biased. And so must be all the happy customers, some wearing ties and Prada frequenting them. Please do not privatise them. Not everybody has a first world income and want to pay first world prices for basic needs. As for the Sengkang residents, they are welcome to Raffles Place to enjoy a $2.50 meal, if they can afford the train or bus fare. For the time being, they should count their blessings. Actually we must be very thankful that the govt did not privatise all the ministries. Of course the quality and efficiency will improve, but the cost of their services will be much higher than now.