How to recover Temasek's billion dollar losses

Bad timing is the main cauee for the big losses that Temasek sufferred. Too eager to buy and too eager to cut losses summed up the events that are now the talk of the town. Buy high and sell low! These are decisions made by the best financial managers that money can buy. On hindsight, many will be asking, 'Is that the best that Temasek could do?' Anyway, it is money under the bridge. Gone. But not to worry. Another big cause to the big losses was the hollowing of our own stock market when huge money were park in the US and Europe instead. This lack of interests in our own blue chips, which Temasek has quite a huge portfolio, allowed these stocks to be dumped to less than half their values at the worst time. Now with the realisation that we should cover our backside while venturing into unknown territories, money is now being ploughed back into our stock market. And we are seeing some rapid surges in the value of our battered blue chips. Another way to raise more money and improve the bottom line is to offer more rights issues. Soon all the money lost will be made back from our own market and from our own investors. Our investors will help to boost up the bottom line and make up for the losses. This is the comparative advantage of being the big boy in the local market, the knowledge and control over how things are and will be. Wall Street is like a jungle infested with thugs and robbers. There is safety on home ground. How come we didn't think of that in the first place? Will the flirtation with the American dream end? Will we still throw money after all the great American financial gurus to bring home the bacon?

Recruit more Arab talents

The best foreign talents in finance are not found in Wall Streets or any European cities. These people make money by cooking the books. The real talents are in the Middle East. The Arab sovereign funds are making billions while we are losing billions. What more to say. Quick quick, send our recruitment team there and stop wasting money recruiting from the US or UK.

Long term investment turning short term

In the stockbroking industry, many short term traders who punted in the market often ended with their short term positions becoming long term. This happens when their positions turn bad and they have to pick up the shares or face immediate losses. Temasek is adopting a different strategy. From long term to short term in their investments. Bad long term investments will be cut. Yesterday it announced another cut, selling its long term stake in Barclay Bank barely a year or two after putting a few billions into it. Here the loss is between 500-600 million pounds or more than a billion $S. This is the second cut loss by Temasek after pulling selling out its Merrill Lynch stake in Bank of America. Wonder how much was the total loss in Merrill Lynch? Now which one will be next to be cut? At the rate it is going, all its long term investments will become short term. What is left? UBS, Citigroup, Morgan Stanley? Will they be cut as well? I don't think any MP will be raising questions on these investments. Probably they will be busy lecturing Low Thia Khiang how to rebuild his Workers Party to fight the next GE.

Parliament is having a break

Geese, without the entertainment from Parliament, news is getting a bit dull. I hope Low Thia Khiang would review carefully the lessons and lectures he received in Parliament and come back prepared to take on the matrons. One thing I hope he will do is to issue a challenge to the good hearted MPs who have been teaching him how to be a politician and invite them to contest in Hougang, one to one, to prove who is being simplistic. The result will be a great testimony on what is real.

Motor insurance premium increased by 400%!

Just read a reply from Pui Phusangmook, SVP & GM NTUC Income, to the claim by Tan Boon Tong that his repair bill was high, $19,800. The photos shown in the ST today, of the damage car in the workshop and those shown yesterday were grossly different. But that was not my concern. I am startled by the comment that Tan Boon Tong's insurance premium had gone up by 400% because of the insurance claim. Actually no, I was not startled by this. I was shocked that his insurance premium would have gone up by 30% on renewal even if he has not make any claims. Wow! 30% increases in premium for nothing! Is this robbery or what? Motorists just have to pay. What choice have they got? Go shopping and compare prices from one insurer to the next? Can they get their insurance from Malaysia?

Great Singapore Sales going to HDB flats

Fernvale Crest, sounded like some place in Bukit Timah, very high end. No it is at the junction of Jalan Kayu and Sengkang West Way. Oops, Jalan Kayu, Sengkang! Anyway, it is BTO, so the design and quality must be good and the price, oh at a great discount, very affordable. They are cheaper by 35-45% from others in the vicinity. Now, isn't it a steal? 2 rm from $74k-$98k, 3 rm from $116k-$157k and 4 rm from $203k-$250k. Cheap, cheap and cheap. Less than 10 years ago, 4 rm flats probably cost about $120k. It depends on what you are comparing. Go to the big shopping centres offering the Great Singapore Sales. Many have jacked up their prices only to bring it down as a great discount. That is ingenuity in pricing. Don't worry about the pricing. Fernvale Crest is going to be our new standard for a Swiss Standard of living.

CASE is working on the abuses in motoring insurance

Motorists should be heartened by CASE's involvement in the motoring insurance scam. It is reported that CASE will be setting up a review committee this month to look into the problem. High time. One suggestion is for motorists to make statutory declarations of an accident. This of course will bring about more costs and time involvement. The question is, why is a police report not enough and a statutory declaration is deemed necessary? Can anyone make a false police report? I believe it is criminal and the person can be charged in court for doing so. What I think is necessary is not to add more layers of administrative work and protective measures. The current procedure may be adequate. What it needs is enforcement and a team of people assigned to deal with it and make an example of a few cases of frauds, charged the culprits and send them to jail. That will send a strong signal to the crooks in the scam. How ridiculous it is to pay $5000 pa or $400 a month just on insurance to have the right to drive a car? Many people may not even drive 10 days a month and it means they will have to pay $40 daily for it. ERP is expensive, what about insurance cost? This is a big rip off! We are going into the realm of madness.

My words are getting prophetic

In no time I will be calling myself a prophet. Yesterday I was mumbling about the great news that patients would be paying less for hospital bills from their pocket but expect higher contributions to their Medisave. Even before the ink was dry, or before the sound of the keyboard faded away, news was out. CPF Minimum sum raised to $117,000 and Medisave Account raised to $32,000. And ceiling for Medisave is also raised to $37,000. If medical cost is not hauled back, looks like no immortals or demigods can do it, the people must be prepared to keep pumping more money into their Medisave. Now the rich citizens of Singapore have $149,000 in the lockup. The other prophetic statement I made earlier was my guess that the Malaysian Special Branch could actually be awared of Mas Selamat's whereabout in Malaysia long ago. Now it is in the paper, that they knew from the day he arrived in Malaysian soil. I am a prophet!

Sin Boon Ann apologised

Actually I was very disappointed. I am sure Sin Boon Ann did not make his comments out of nothing. Ok, quoting an unnamed source from the internet was a mistake. But was there biased reporting? Ok, don't use the word biased, but was the coverage fair? With Han Fook Kwang's admission that they could have done better, would Sin Boon Ann won his case should it be taken to court? In this case, with the privilege of speaking in Parliament, he would not have to go that path. What would happen if Sin Boon Ann insists that what he said was a fair comment? Was his apology just for quoting an unnamed source or was it an apology for saying that ST was biased in reporting which he then believed it was wrong and could not be substantiated?

Great savings on surgery bills!!!

'From today, you could pay $1,950 less for a knee replacement surgery and a six day hospital stay in a Class A ward - thanks to the increase in Medisave withdrawal limits for surgeries, which will reduce out of pocket expenses for patients.' This is the first paragraph of Neo Chai Chin's article on surgery bills in the Today paper. My 92 year old mother will jump with jubilation. She will even exclaimed, 'wow, free, so cheap!' To her, CPF money, Medisave money is not her money. It is money from somewhere that she did not know. So spending all the CPF money, all the Medisave money is alright. In a way it is true, afterall, one cannot touch the money unless one is so 'sway' to be struck by a serious illness. Then only one has the privilege to empty it from the Medisave Account. Otherwise, it is not your money to use. So, is this what reducing medical cost is all about? Or is it now cast in stone that medical cost cannot come down, will not come down, and the only way is to find other ways for the patients to pay, and the best way is to pay through the Medisave account. Don't take from the right pocket, take from the back pocket. So what's next, CPF not enough, Medisave not enough. We need to raise the contribution in the Medisave Account. The Medisave Account of the people are being depleted so fast, like the CPF, that they have not enough money for retirement and to pay medical bills. Raise the Medisave Account to $200K! That should do for a while.

9 NCMPs up for grabs!

This is the carrot that the govt is waving at the opposition parties. They know that the opposition candidates will not win an election except for Chiam and Low. And Chiam is fading away with age. The opposition may be left with Low alone unless Chiam can find a worthy successor to replace him. So far none in sight. Chaim should consider Sylvia Lim if all else failed. But not all is lost. The opposition can now hope to contest for the 9 NCMP seats available. This is their best bet. Don't forget, we have yet to hear anything about ensuring better quality MPs, indirectly saying that the barrier could be raised. If that be the case, the opposition will have to scratch their heads botak to find better candidates to stand. They can approach Siew Kum Hong as a possible. Not to be distracted, let's return to this happy proposition that opposition parties should be gunning to be NCMPs. The govt can make this more attractive by increasing the allowance for NCMPs. Then perhaps the opposition can serious go for it. And perhaps the opposition can table a counter proposal in Parliament to have 50% of the contested wards be offered NCMP seats. That will ensure a greater presence of opposition MPs in Parliament, a livelier debate and maybe a better govt. And the ruling govt can continue to be the govt forever and ever.

Good MP, Good Govt and Good Debate

This is the heading of an article by Jeremy Au Yong that screamed across the ST yesterday. He was reporting on Swee Say's assessment on the new changes to the electoral system, that it will bring about these results. How many of you agree with this conclusion? We have good govt for many years and people are getting wealthier, buying million dollar homes without battling an eyelid. Singaporeans are very rich and and living very well. Will we be getting better govt with the changes? Will the people be better off than they were now? Some will and some will remain losers all their lives. Making any one sentence or one paragraph conclusion on this will be too simplistic as the answer can only be found across the whole population. Good MPs? According to who and to who standard of assessment? Slipper MPs are bad, that's quite obvious. What else, must be highly qualified, must be successful, must be rich, must have rich parents, must come from top schools, must have straight As? Would these be the criteria to determine good MPs? Or without these, the quality of MPs will be poor, the barrier to entry if too low will be bad? I am still pondering what is a good MP? Good debate? Do we have good debates, great debates? With 15 minutes of coverage on the TV, one can hardly form any conclusion about the quality of debate, if there was a debate at all. Most often it was either govt MPs praising the govt or govt MPs talking down to the 3 opposition MPs. The provision of more NCMPs is just a side show. Nice to have but mostly inconsequential. What the Parliament needs are MPs of the people's choice, elected by the people under a system that is fair and equitable to all parties. Go back to the single ward representation of the past, and lower the financial barriers to entry. Let the potential MPs stand out and present themselves to the people first, convince the people that they are worthy to be an MP and get voted into the Parliament. Only then will we have a real Parliament of the people, by the people and for the people. Only then can we have MPs defending the rights of the people and not defending the interests of their parties. Retain a few 3 member GRCs to ensure minority representation and the rest can go straight to the people and let the people decide what they think is good for them. The electorate is well educated and mature today. On the other hand, let me offer a simplistic view here, good debates do not guarantee good govt. So it is better to have a business like govt and a not so good debate in Parliament. To have good MPs, good debates and good govt, is like having the cake and eats it. Too good to be true.

MP, NMP and NCMP

The new changes to the electoral system and membership of parliament are going to be met with a dosage of cynicism. What would these terms MP, NMP and NCMP mean now? Members of Parliament, Non Members of Parliament and Not Counted Members of Parliament? In a way they could literally mean these. The Nominated MPs are nominated, not elected and have limited rights. So are the Non Constituency MPs. They are MPs but not MPs. What many have missed is Low Thia Kiang's point that the Parliament is a sitting of elected MPs. The MPs must be elected by the people to represent them. By all these tweakings, would our Parliament become a Parliament dominated by MPs that are not elected by the people? And they can talk until the cows come home, but they are inconsequential when come to voting for bills to be passed by Parliament. So to call the NMPs and NCMPs as Non MPs and Not Counted MPs are not too far off. Just another way of looking at things.

The Straits Times explained

After the censure and comments in Parliament, Han Fook Kwang reluctantly explained the position of the ST's coverage of the Aware saga. He would not want to, for his view is that the ST only reports factually and correctly and the readers are left to their own conclusion. Then why were there accusations that the ST coverage was biased? Why would a non partisan reader like me found the ST coverage more on a single factor, the religious encroachment into a secular organisation and the skimming through of another major issue, the CSE curriculum that Aware was teaching to the children? Sure the ST did reported on this. But Han Fook Kwang also admitted that the coverage could have been better on this. The question is that the ST, the reporters and editors, are all professionals. Didn't they see or know that their coverage was lob sided until the public had to point it out? Lob sided articles are fair game in cyberspace where objectivity and professionalism are not the hallmark of netizens. Netizens mostly do not care a dime about being professional or being objective, being fair. Many do not claim to be. In the case of the professionals, such traits and approach are their bread and butter and cannot be lightly dismissed as another case of irrational exuberance. Did they got carried away by the event? Han Fook Kwang's letter in the ST claimed that 'Our job is to report accurately and fairly what is happening and to make sense of it for our readers so they can draw their own conclusions.' He also said this, 'We have also carried out our own internal review of our coverage and have found that we could have done better in several respects.' And he stands by the professionalism of his reporters. "The Straits Times has no hidden agenda to push this line or that, or to favour one group against another.' This is most assuring.

Of mollycoddled and mollycoddling

Why are Singaporeans taking issue with Sam Tan about them being mollycoddled by the govt? Singaporeans, especially the losers are quite sick actually. When they face a little difficulty they called for the govt to help, for free handouts. Why don't they stand up for themselves, tighten their belts, work doubly hard and create opportunities for themselves to make more money? There are so many successful people here, many earning millions and have millions in their saving accounts. The losers should learn from these successful people and stop expecting help from the govt. They must help themselves, be self reliant. If I only have a few millions in my savings account, I too will talk like that. And tell the losers off. Unfortunately I can't.

Say a word for the little people

Many Singaporeans are involved in the stock market. Some have fallen victims to the harsh and excessive penalties imposed by the SGX for small mistakes that they made while trading, ie, selling shares that they did not own. To err is human. A slight mistake like this will cause the small investors a $1000 fine! This may be chicken feed to the big boys in SGX who only know money in the millions and millions. So setting a $1000 penalty for a minor mistake may be very kind in their eyes, but it is a big sum of money to many people. The SGX’s justification is to curb short selling that will affect the market, or cause more work to buy in for their staff. What utter rubbish. The 5 lots or 20 lots that a small investor sold by mistake, intentional or otherwise, will have minimal or no impact on the price of the shares. It is the big boys that short sell in hundreds of thousands, or millions, that will distort the market in their favour. They should be the one that needs to be hauled up and punished. The second reason is more unreasonable. Buying in is the job of the SGX. They cannot penalize small investors with a sledgehammer because they did not like to do it, too many buy ins too troublesome. The more freaking thing is that the small investors are the customers of the SGX. And when they make mistakes, instead of helping them, they got slammed with a sledghammer. How's that for taking good care of your customers? What kind of attitude is this? Small investors tremble in fear when they make such a mistake and pay heavily for it. And they are not commiting a crime against anyone. I think in the courts of law, many more serious crimes could be fined for less than a $1000. Here we are talking about a human error. Now, while Parliament is in session, I can only hope that some MPs would raise this issue for the sake of the small investors. The small investors are simply helpless in the face of such unreasonable, disproportionate and costly penalty. Or maybe the sum of $1000 is also too small in the eyes of the MPs and no one thinks that this is an issue.

Opposition MPs deserved to be respected

Was it a coincidence, or Media Corp read what I posted about the lack of coverage on opposition MPs in the Parliament report? Both were unlikely. It was probably their way of scheduling whose turn to appear on TV, and last night I saw Sylvia Lim, Low Thia Kiang and even Chiam See Tong’s face on the news. So strange. For quite a while, opposition MPs were somehow treated in a less friendly way by the media and also in Parliament. They were kind of like the enemies of the people, out to subvert the govt, to do the country in. They were like thugs or gangsters, probably carrying guns and acid into Parliament. In short they were up to no good and should be kept at a dismissive distance. Actually the opposition MPs are also the people’s elected representatives to Parliament. They deserve to be respected and treated with some decency and decorum. Treating them otherwise, humiliating them, spitting at them, mocking at them, etc is as good as showing no respect to the people who elected them and whom the MPs were representing. By adopting such a negative stance, it will only accentuate a deep divide among parliamentarians in the highest house of the land. We do not want our parliamentarians to drift down to a state when they hurl shoes or throw chairs at one another. The parliament is a place to contest ideas in a honourable and respectful way. It is not a place to run down one another at the slightest opportunity, right or wrong, like little boys and girls do, to look smug. Our Parliament can be a model parliament where debates and issues are discussed seriously, vehemously, and logically, where parliamentarians fight vigorously over issues instead of taking snipe attacks at one another. We are a mature first world country and our parliamentarians should behave likewise, with great honour, graciousness and humility, while pursuing their political objectives and championing the cause of the people. Chok Tong has fired the first salvo to be fairer to the opposition, to listen to their views. Let’s make this real for once. We need to grow up and behave like adults.

Thank you Malaysia

Malaysia is keeping Mas Selamat for two years. This is the best favour that Malaysia can do for us. Now we don't have to house him in an expensive landed property in one of the choices part of the island. And we don't have to feed him, cloth him, make sure he is well. The best part is not having to worry that he will run away again. This will now be Malaysia's problem. For the next two years, it is unlikely that Mas Selamat will be able to escape from the Malaysian detention camp. He can only be free if Malaysia agrees to let him go, in two years time. The worry will start only then.

Changes to electoral system counter productive

The changes as announced will ensure more alternative views from NMPs. That is ok. As for the possibility of more opposition MPs or NCMPs, that may not be a good thing given that opposition MPs are mostly very simplistic in their views, of no substance and only opposed for opposition's sake. And by looking at the Parliamentary proceedings, it is clear that when NMPs talked, they will be listened to without much rebutting. But when simplistic opposition MPs talked, you can expect immediate rebuttals. Their views are just not worth anything. So the new changes may be a contradiction. The offering of more single seat wards may not see more than the current two opposition MPs. The better qualified and talented MPs that were selected through a thorough system of screening will definitely won in SMCs if they are contested. And they must all be very eager to take on the less talented opposition candidates. Let's see who is going to take on Low Thia Kiang and Chaim See Tong and win. If they can beat these two, then maybe they are really something. It will be quite embarrassing if they can't even beat MPs that are simplistic and say things that are not worth listening to.

Low Thia Kiang simplistic

Indranee Rajah said Low Thia Kiang was simplistic when the latter called for a stronger opposition to prevent and check a govt from becoming corrupt. The equally simplistic view is to believe that a strong govt will never be corrupt. Both views are equally simplistic without elaboration and qualification. By the way, what is the definition of corruption? Corrupt or not corrupt according to who? Yesterday in parliament I think most will agree that Low Thia Kiang was simplistic simply because when put to a vote, it is likely that there will be 82 MPs voting that it is so. So it is a numerical fact, a numerical truth. So a person can become simplistic in a situation when the majority point a finger at him and said, yes he is simplistic. The majority is right. Using the same logic, if we were to put it to a vote in cyberspace and the majority view will prevail, which view will be called simplistic? Low Thia Kiang's or Indranee Rajah's? Shall we have a vote on this? I think with the change that Chok Tong is calling for, maybe there will be less dismissive statements levelled at the opposition members. By being inclusive and willing to hear alternative views, maybe there will be more chances of opposition views being listened to and pondered over with without being brushed off immeidiately as superficial. Personally I don’t think Low Thia Kiang is being simplistic by making that remark. I think there is a lot of wisdom in his statement. Oh dear, now I will also be branded as another one with simplistic views. Pai seh man. Is our system beyond reproach for corruption? So far the most often spoken view in public is that our system is free of corruption. I am sure all Singaporeans will swear that this is the truth if they were asked to state their views. I too will swear that this is true. We should pat ourselves on our back to be able to tell the world that this is the pride of all Singaporeans. Would this view be changed some day?