The Ten Commandments(for the corporate world)

In his article on the global meltdown of yesteryear, Robin Chan listed down ten of the evils that led to the fall of corporate giants and threatening the collapse of the economic world order. His 10 points are: 1. The housing crisis was boosted by a booming stock market and low interest rates, leading to a housing bubble. 2. Financial derivatives of mass destruction like CDS and CDOs which the bankers called ingenious financial products were good for the industry. In reality these were highly leveraged debt which were restructured and layered and were not more than a house of cards. 3. The lack of rules and regulations, or deregulations, allowing financial thugs a free hand to structure secret or shady deals. No regulation is good for the market was the mantra of the day. 4. Irresponsible rating agencies operating under conflicts of interests and aiding the process of tradings in high risks products by giving them AAA ratings. 5. Fair value or mark to market pricing, allowing the market to determine the value of assets rather than its underlying value, believing that the market is the best judge of the value of an asset. 6. Reckless bonus payouts and huge salaries as an acceptable norm to corporate honchos which led to high risk taking for short term gains. 7. Big is good and big banks are better than small banks. The bigger the better. What happened was that the banks and pseudo banks became so big that they could not be allowed to fold no matter how big were their debt and mismanagement. 8. Curbing financial innovation is bad. Innovation is the way forward to creating wealth and profits. The CDS and CDOs are ok and they should not be blamed but for the lack of understanding what they were that led to the demise. 9. To save the economic systems, countries printed money and more money to pump the system, to encourage spending, leading to a disproportionate debt that itself becomes a problem for the future generations to bear. It created a new problem to save an old problem. 10. The death of the theory of efficient market, believing that an efficient market will take care of the loose ends. It failed miserably. The sad thing today is that the above 10 causes and consequences of the financial crisis are still there and kicking, alive. Nothing very much were done to tackle these problems and they are coming back, taking a new life of its own with renewed vigour. In order to stamp out these corporate sins, we need a Ten Commandments to deal with them. 1. Thou shalt not create a housing bubble. 2. Thou shalt not allow high risk derivatives and products to flood the financial industry. 3. Thou shalt not allow thoughtless deregulations to run the financial system and the economy. 4. Thou shalt hang irresponsible rating agencies and financial institutions. Actually should prosecute the CEOs. Amend this to, Thou shalt not bear false witness or tell lies. 5. Thou shalt abolish fair value or mark to market pricing of assets. 6. Thou shalt not cast lustful glances at your neighbours huge bonuses or lusting for them. 7. Thou shalt not allow banks or financial institutions to grow too big. 8. Thou shalt regulate the so called 'financial innovations' and make sure they are safe. 9. Thou shalt not print money and increase public debt. 10. Thou shalt not blindly believe in the goodness of an efficient market to self regulate and heal the evils in the system.

It is political, it is documentary, it is...

Coming hot on the heels of the reclassification of the 'Demons' In White to be not dangerous anymore, not enemies, we are seeing the reclassification of Martyn See's Singapore Rebel from a political film to a documentary film. See how outrageous things can be? It is political, no it is not, no it is,... depending on the tide and wave, I think. When is a person a good person or a bad person is also dependent on the situation and timing, and also which side one gets up from the bed. But the truth will still be the truth and any truth that has not surfaced will surface in a matter of time. The only issue is that it is not time, or the timing is not right. Will we see a new history to write something good about JBJ or Chee Soon Juan?

Property bubble to be raised in parliament

MPs are gearing up to raise questions on the buying frenzy for new properties and the escalating of property prices, both public and private. Would it be a concern all for nothing? Mah Bow Tan has said many times that HDB prices are affordable. So has HDB with their repeated explanations in the media, and today it came out with a detailed table to show how affordable the HDB flats are. The figures speak for themselves and why are people refusing to listen and accept the fact that HDB prices are affordable? A 3 rm flat at $150k only needs $460 pm to service. Very affordable for a household income of $2000. No need cash I think, just use the full CPF contribution. And a 5 rm flat at $330k needs only $1189 pm with a little cash after using all their CPF. The report did not say whether the repayment is 30 or 40 years. Anyway, very affordable, without much CPF left. While critics are embroiled in the issues of affordability and mark to market pricing, they tend to forget that maxing the used of CPF will mean compromising on the key role of CPF savings for retirement. No one is asking about the real cost of the flats and why pricing to extract the most from the buyers and eating up all their disposable income. This is public housing afterall and keeping the price low will allow the buyers to use their income in many other ways. The danger of a subprime crisis in our midst cannot be ruled out as the conditions are quite similar, low interest rate, liquidity, full employment, an economy that is still ticking. With such high leverage and big loans, a little flu in our economy will hit these high leverage buyers badly. When the price of a flat is dependent on mark to market pricing which is highly volatile and can go crazy, when a flat costing $150k can be sold for $300k or $500k, it can come tumbling down when the demand is not there. Would it not be better for a little intervention to moderate the craziness and not letting the bubble to expand to catastrophic proportion before bursting? Let the market forces or free market mechanism do its job? Where is the moral responsibility to be prudent and avoid plunging into a tragedy? Caveat emptor good enough?

She is rich, at least worth $300k!

Most Singaporeans owning a HDB flat is worth at least a couple of hundred thousand bucks. An owner of a 3 rm flat should be worth about $300k. Now that kind of wealth could make the person live like a rich gentry in many countries. In paradise, some of these people are living the life of vagabonds, scrapping a living collecting tin cans and scrap boards. This is real, no imagination. There is such an old woman shown on video. What she needs is to get a financial adviser to manage her wealth, turn the piece of asset into an income and live better. Or maybe she was just trying to keep herself fit and collecting scrap boards is just a form of exercise.

Anti Jews tattoo

Malaysia has its cow head stomping incident. We have our 'Anti Jews' tattoo incident. In our case it was a guy with a tattoo 'Anti Jews' done on his face. And he was charged in court for hitting a Jew. He really did that. Such anti racial or religious acts did not happen out of the blue. The govt has a prominent role to send the right message out, that it would not tolerate such acts and behaviours. Any govt that takes a partial attitude towards such infringements will only encourage and breed more of such behaviours. Any infringement of such a nature must be nipped in the bud and the law coming down hard on the culprits. The message must be loud and clear. By the way, how could someone wearing such a tattoo on his face in Singapore and get away with it? Nobody notices it? It is good that the Malaysian govt has taken action to charge those who were involved in the cow head stomping incident. If they continue to protect the culprits, more racial hatred will flare up. Now the whole community will be watching the case and see how partial or impartial will be the court's judgement.

The Age of Demonising over?

During the cold war period the western powers and their media went on a tenacious campaign to demonise anything Communist, Russian or China as bad, demons, devils, destructive, terror, evil or whatever that is negative. This went on for more than half a century till today. There is a little easing off lately with the fall of the Soviet Union and the emergence of a capitalist China. The demonising is still going on. The events following the publishing of the book Men In White could be an indication that the Age of Demonising your enemies or opponents is slowly coming to an end. Or will it be? Our general election is around the corner. The opposition political parties are not in the same league of the Communists and the Barisan Socialists. They are more like any other ordinary citizens. Would they be subject to the kind of demonising to discredit them as reasonable people unworthy to be elected as the people's representatives in Parliament? For that matter, why are cyberspace and alternative media being regarded in the likes of dissidents or anti establishment parties, an evil force that must be watched like a hawk and if possible nabbed and put into cold storage? I seem to have this impression, rightly or wrongly, that this is the sentiment. Is it true or just my imagination? Are they that dangerous, that destructive? By the way, alternative parties are just groups of individuals offering an alternative to run the country and not gangsters or mobs or triads or demons. They need to be treat respectfully as any deserving citizens, in fact better, for their noble intention to serve the people and nation. There are thugs, rogues and scoundrels in their midst, possible. In fact these undesirable elements are present in all corners of society, among the elite as well. Will we see the passing of the Age of Demonising? Or calling people names, branding people as bad, etc etc is still a way of protecting ones own self interest. They are bad, we are good!

The fragility of our stock market

Yesterday was the 10th anniversary of the SGX and it was all celebration and a job well done. Everyone was given a pat on the back for their contributions to the success and growth of the SGX from 500 companies to more than 700 companies. And we are now recognised as a serious international player. The success of a stock market depends on many factors, the system and administrator, the products and the players. I have dealt with some of the problems of system flaw in the past, especially the uneven playing field which I still find it unacceptable and unfair to the small players. I will now briefly touch on the products and players in the market. Other than our local companies, we have introduced stocks from some 20 companies as proof of our progress in internationalising our stock market. I wonder how many of these stocks are being traded and worth the cost of having them listed in our market. The more glaring issue is the S Chips. These came in to replace the Malaysian CLOB when Mahathir threw in the spanner. Are we better off? Or are the investors better off? Do we get more money for the investors or more outflow of our hard earned money with a net loss due to frauds and misrepresentation? What is the bottom line? The players in our market are the big foreign funds, local broking houses, small and big local investors, and the increasing role of remisiers own trading. The foreign funds come and go, some short term, some trading furiously like the small traders or worst, with programme trading to scalp whatever they can from the market. Both the funds and broking houses are taking full advantage of their low cost, ie, practically no commission to trade against the small investors. Who will win in such a game is obvious. With commission dwindling to a level that it is no longer worth the risk exposure, many remisiers are resorting to their own trading. Why risk thousands or hundreds of thousands of dollars for a $20 or $200 commission. The mistakes are very costly and so are bad debts. Not many people understand the role of remisiers and how unfair is the system towards them. With a small population of active investors, the market is just unsustainable without the remisier acting as a multiplier through their role as the guarantor and money lender to the investors. No banks will take such risk and exposure with minimal or no collateral. The alternative is not to allow such risk and exposure in the system, which means the market will practically come to a standstill, with negligible trading activities. There was a myth that with the introduction of internet trading, there is no need for this middleman. This has proven drastically wrong as the cost to maintain such a system negates the pittance returns from the traders. How many employees can actually trade online when they are working in their offices? The big players have no time to stick to a computer terminal when a phone call is all they need to do. How long can the remisiers continue to trade on their own and to make money out of the system is an issue that will soon play itself out. The recent mini bullrun is an aberration. In most instances, the remisiers are losing their pants because of the uneven playing field and programme trading. Now there are things like dark pool, preview of trading data, speed trading etc which all favours the big players. Assuming that the pool of remisiers find that they cannot win in such a market and call it a day, assuming that no contra trading is available as there is no remisier to be the middleman to act as guarantor to pay for the bad debt, how active can our market be? Will the big funds still be here when the small investors are no longer there to be scalped? Is our market sustainable in the long run with such a small pool of traders and with increasing number of stocks and derivatives being introduced into the market?

Myth 210 - Singapore Govt's money is not the people's money?

Letter To The Wall Street Journal, 8 Sep 2009 Correcting Temasek Misperceptions We wish to correct some fundamental misperceptions in your Aug. 31 editorial "Temasek's Revised Charter." First, Temasek is an investment company set up as an asset owner to seek returns by taking investment risks. While our sole shareholder is the Singapore government, we are not a "fund," and do not manage Singapore "citizens' earnings." It is factually wrong to imply that Singaporeans have no choice but to "keep their money with the fund." The above is part of a statement by Temasek's MD Corporate Affairs to the Wall Street Journal. To be specific, it says that it manages Singapore's govt's money and not Singapore "citizens' earnings". I am not sure if Singapore "citizens' earnings" is the same as Singapore citizens' money. As a layman, I think the citizens of Singapore will think or believe that the Govt's money is the citizens' money. But many in the forum have told me that this is not true. I think the Govt's money are money from the Govt's income, including taxes, rentals, sales of land and properties, services etc. Technically, they are not the citizens's earnings but the Govt's earnings. Let me offer another example to clarify this explanation. If I lend $1k to A and B lend the $1k to C, C is right to say that he is not spending my money. Cause he borrows it from B and is accountable to B. So Temasek is managing the Govt's money, not the people's earnings. Right.

Notable quotes by Jim Rogers

"They have more than doubled the American national debt in one weekend for a bunch of crooks and incompetents. I'm not quite sure why I or anybody else should be paying for this." Jim Rogers Who are these incompetents and crooks? These are people who churned out corporate profits in the billions when the organisations are technically bankrupts. And mind you, they are the supertalents from the top notch universities. And they do not know that they have done wrong. And they are demanding the same crazy pay and bonuses again. You don't need crooks and robbers when you have them around. And they are much more greedy and deadlier. They have no shame, no sense of moral justice. They only demand a ransom from the organisations and shareholders.

SCCCI broke its silence

The Singapore Chinese Chamber of Commerce and Industry has joined the debate over the lack of linguistic skills of foreign immigrants working in the sales industry. Many forum letter writers have written to the media to complain about this lack of English Language skill and some even suggested that people who can't speak English should not be allowed here. Ah, it brings back memories of the good old days when a pass in English is the key condition for a job in the colonial civil service. I think it is a good idea to make English proficiency a criteria for employment here. Maids, construction workers, sales staff etc and who else to include in this category? Employers must be fuming mad. It will give life to a new industry in language learning, and more private language schools to come into this new business.

Resurrection of the 'Demons' In White

The book Men In White has the inadvertent consequence of bringing together the political foes of our freedom fighter generation. These were the people who fought the British for independence and later fighting among themselves for political supremacy. There was a contest of will, political ideologies and beliefs. They fought and threw punches at each other, or they fought, and one side received all the punches and black eyes, and were demonised, captured or fled the country. Many never ever dream of a homecoming unless they recant their 'wrong doings'. Yesterday many returned. For those who were biting their nails and waiting to see these men with horns on their foreheads, they were disappointed. They came and appeared like ordinary men, with a tie. There were no signs of the terrorists or rugged guerilla fighters left in them. Fighting for political powers in those days were really fighting for life and death, unlike today when fighting for more money, status and power was the order of the day. It is good that old men and women should put down their swords and cudgels and shake hands and call each other friends. It is good to let the bad memories fade into history. Yes, bury the hatchet and embrace one another as old friends. If we can embrace strangers and new immigrants as one of us, there is no reason not to welcome home our brothers and sisters of the past to live among us. A first step forward to more graciousness. The next question is whether the political climate and rules of the game be changed as we move forward. Or would it be just a flash in the pan and things will return to normal, and the weapons be strapped back around the waist, the cudgels in hand, ready to deliver the next deadly blow?

CPF Life the best scheme

The CPF Life annuity scheme is the best scheme that the govt can think of. I won't disagree with that. For many who are unable to manage their forced savings, they definitely need another forced annuity scheme to carry on the trend of being forced to look after themselves. With so many enquiries, the CPF Life scheme is expected to robe in many more contributors, especially with the carrot of a $4,000 bonus for those who are not forced to sign on. I will encourage all those who need someone to manage their money to sign on too. This leaving your money to other people to manage is becoming a Singaporean habit, a Singaporean trait. For me, no way. I will never sign on anything that has a 'forced element' in it. I am very capable of taking care of myself and my money. It is such a great feeling to touch the money inside your pocket and say, 'Yes, it is my money. It is real. And I can do whatever I want with it, any time any place.' Mine is just a personal preference. Actually, with such a great scheme, if it is that good, people will be queuing to sign up, like property launches. No need compulsion. They will queue over night for it too. Community Clubs can help by providing buses to fetch them to CPF Board. Maybe not necessary if they can sign up in the Clubs themselves. Should CPF Board try this and see how many will queue to sign up for this great scheme?

Do banks have the ammo to fight frauds

This headline in the ST reminds me of the realisation in the European community of the real robbers that are robbing the people. Before I go on, the article in the ST was about banks trying to curb credit card frauds and limiting the liabilities of card holders. The European concern that was taken up by their Finance Ministers at the G20 was about the disproportional ransoms that the bankers are extorting from the banking industries. They reminded the ministers at the meeting that even before the financial crisis is over the bankers are paying themselves the crazy bonuses that they were getting before. And the Americans are not going with the Europeans as the main culprits are the American bankers themselves. These robbers are robbing their shareholders of hundreds of millions each, individually and annually. How on earth could they justify their abilities to earn that kind of money? With or without them, with a new team in charge, their banks are going to do just as fine, or just as badly. Many were managed to the brink of bankruptcies, or were bankrupts and needed govt and public funds to save them. The read fraudsters that are cheating the minority shareholders are the bankers themselves, and the CEOs of MNCs where the minority shareholders are helpless while the management just write their own pay checks, and pay themselves crazy. Do we need to look anywhere for fraudsters? Oh, pardon me, I am referring to European and American bankers and MNC CEOs, those who took tens or hundreds of millions. And it is not just the CEOs, it is the whole management team and board of directors. All are in it. It is a case of I pay you and you pay me, I approve your pay and you approve mine.

Bird watching

I went on a bird watching trip recently, armed with binoculars and camera, to watch and count the number of birdies in our little island. Many of the old birdies have disappeared. The merboks, the magpies, the Mynars, the nectar feeders etc. Even the sparrows, the most populous and in every roof corners, are hardly seen today. We were briefed that the bird population has grown with more sanctuaries being set aside as protected territories for migratory birds to nest here. So we counted all day long. As usual, the mynars and sparrows were few. But the numbers of crows, egrets, green pigeons, herons and many that were rarely seen in our island, non residents, are setting roots here and making our sanctuaries their homes. A thought came to my mind. One day we may see Singaporeans lugging their binos and digiphones in the city looking for Singaporeans and counting Singaporeans. The Singaporeans have gradually become a rare specie, and it takes effort to find them in the crowds of foreigners. There may be conducted tours with well informed tour guides leading groups to look out for Singaporeans. They will be armed with knowledge on Singaporean behavioral patterns, eating habits, slangs, dressing and their favourite haunts, what to look out for to separate them from the foreigners or new Singaporeans. And I think this will become a new industry. Conducted tours for Singaporean watching, and counting.

The wooden story revives

‘I was a block of wood. So? It was the truth.’ This story is immortalised in the Men In White book. How many political leaders would take such a comment in a public address standing up? Chok Tong did, standing 6 ft 4in tall. And he not only admitted that he was wooden, he could joke about it too. That is the kind of leader we have and the people love him for it. His ministers continued to support him. He is the most likeable PM so far. And because of the public dressing, he became a better man, more uninhibited and improved on his public image and public speaking. In other words, less wooden. And he got LKY to thank for. In LKY is another quality of leadership unseen anywhere. His lecture is always well regarded by friends and foes. Chok Tong became a leader and his own man and accepted the comment though stunned for a while. Recently we have another grateful recipient of his lecture in Parliament. After his robust reply to newbie NMP Sadasivan, the latter was thankful, like a student attending a lecture in the university once again. And we can see him learning and gaining from it and become a better man in the future This is the unique quality of LKY. He can tell anyone off and the recipients felt very grateful for the lesson, for he meant well. ‘He’s not a man to slam you for nothing. He was never personal.’ Said Chok Tong. Imagine another leader coming out and make such a comment on anyone, the reception is not going to be the same. There were several instances, some in Parliament, and I don’t think the recipients were grateful for the dressing down. Maybe some PMs may learn this trick from LKY and make public assessments of his cabinet ministers in the future, if he is LKY calibre. Anyway, what’s wrong with being called wooden when there is real substance. The number one golfer’s official name is Woods, Tiger Woods. And no one is disturbed by that name. Who knows, the next headline when Tiger wins another tournament may be ‘The Wood is on top again!’

"Affordable" in inverted commas

The ST reported on the new launch of another condominium in the Gillman Height site and the "affordable" prices that are being offered. A 2-rm 75 sq m unit is priced at $700k or about $1000 psf. When words are bracket by inverted commas, it is clear that the meaning is suspect. Affordable or affordability is now a misleading term, depending on who is using it and the listener. It used to be the belief that when something is said often enough and repeated loud enough, people will come to accept it as the truth. Unfortunately these two words have developed into some kind of ill repute. People no longer believe in them. What if affordable is mixed up with heavy subisidies, with willing buyer willing seller, with market pricing? How believeable and affordable can it be? Could the people uttering affordable really and sincerely believe in what they are saying? I do. Anyone who cannot afford to pay $700k in their lifetime(two incomes) for a roof over their head is unfit to live in paradise when people could easily earn $1m in a year. There is a spurious outpouring of unhappiness over the usage of the word afforable and the basis or formula use to define what it is in the ST forum today. And this is only the tip of the iceberg. We do not know how many letters have been sent to the ST before a few were printed. And the angry cries in cyberspace would probably not be heard, so not counted. As long as the affected people chose to keep quiet, the few voices heard would be read as too little to warrant any serious attention. Unless the voice is loud enough, spoken often and with more anger, no one is going to listen and people will conclude that 'see, no protest, so no problem'. The affordability index is so perfectly calibrated that the people are happy with it. And the properties, private and public, are selling like hot cakes. The demands are evidence to prove that it is right. Does anyone ask how many of the visitors in property launches are paid to be there or how many units are actually booked by the agents themselves to give the impression of strong demand? And how many are booked by speculators?

Myth 209 - Fiction of succession planning

We are renowned for our ability to plan a head. And corporate succession planning must be a piece of cake. Failure to work out such a simple plan will be sorely felt and seen as simply incompetent. Or is there a better expression, inability to plan, forget to plan, dunno how to plan, or simply no time to plan, but pretend that it was all planned? We have seen many several CEOs departing and then we hear a big announcement, the organisation is searching around the globe for a successor. And the process will take another few months or years. What is succession planning? Didn't the CEO has someone standing by that can take over should he gone missing? Or our organisations are so dearth of CEO potential that whenever a CEO departs, someone outside must be brought in? This has been the case, it seems. All the bullshitting about succession planning are now laid bare for all to see. There is no succession planning, or there is no one within the organisation that is fit to succeed the CEO. What a pathetic state of affair!

The reassurance Singaporeans needed

Catherine Lim's question to LKY during the dialogue at the LKY School of Policy inadvertently led to the revelation and reassurance of the resilience and ruggedness of our political system and govt infrastructure. This will be PAP's legacy and achievement for the people and country. In his reply to Catherine, LKY assured her that in the event of a freak election result that threw out the PAP, the army will not move in. The second assurance is that we have an excellent checks and control system underpinned by our elected President system and this will protect the country's reserve from a scoundrel govt. Feeling better already. The other assurance that was implicit is that our political system will withstood any changes of govt, and even if an opposition comes into power, the political system and govt will continue to run. It will be tragic if after operating a govt and political system for 45 years the country will turn into turmoil just because a new political party is elected into office. A democratic electoral system and govt must be designed for govt change, peacefully by the electoral proceses. And PAP has ensured that the system holds. This is just like succession planning. An organisation must be able to continue to run when the leadership is changed and not collapsed. Any responsible CEO must always prepare the next man to step into his shoe should he need to vacate the position for any reason. Sadly, many big organisations are failing in this area. And when the top guy falls, there will start running around looking for a successor. What a joke. Back to the resilience of our govt and political system. With the assurance given, does it mean that the electorate can now be confident to go ahead and elect a new party to power? Does it mean that the system will still work and will not collapse? The assumption of course is that the electorate is also smart enough not to elect a bunch of idiots or scoundrels to form the govt. Assuming that the opposition parties are able to put up a slate of professionals, I mean professionals and respectable individuals, no need scholar calibre, and they be elected to govt, will the change be just a normal process without big upheavals? Japan has done that and its system is holding, it is not collapsing when a new and inexperience team of politicians are taking over. We will have to see whether the strength of our system is real or a myth when that day comes.

Proud to be a Malay Singaporean

This is an article by Khartini Khalid who is pursuing a master's degree in international relations at The Fletcher School, Tufts University. The Fletcher School is renowned for International Relations courses and to be there is itself an accomplishment. I can understand why Khartini felt proud, as an individual and as a Malay Singaporean. She has proven that the Mahathir Myth that Malays are less equal than other racial groups wrong. Khartini told the story of her research project which took her to a Malay village in Negri Seremban. In those few days she discovered how different the Malays in Singapore were from the Malays in Malaysia. The social and political space they live and operate were distinctly different. In Malaysia, different races still live in their own communal quarters while in Singapore, the official policy is to mix the people to avoid a concentration of races in their respective corners. Malaysia and Singapore race relations have developed from these different footings and we can be proud that racial tension has eased off in our case but remains more or less the same in Malaysia since 1969. The whole social/economic and political system in Malaysia revolves around race and Malay dominance, and a govt that promotes superiority of a racial group. In Singapore, racial equality is in our constitution, though an aspiration, nonetheless, the govt takes tremendous effort to prevent race biased tension among the people. Which is a better system is subjective. But one point I like to comment on is that our system will fail miserably if the govt goes about promoting and protecting the interest of one racial group or the majority against the interest of the minority. In fact the govt takes pain to play down on the dominance of the majority group and will come down hard on the majority should it try to exert too much influence or disadvantage the minority. This is the crux of our successful formula. All things being equal, the majority must take a step back to accommodate the minority. The reverse is true in Malaysia and this has resulted in the majority exerting more and more pressure on the minorities with implicit support from the govt. The latest issue of the stamping of the cow's head during a demonstration and the govt playing down the infringement as a non issue is a case in point. Such blatant disrespect of the minority sensitivity will not be tolerated here and the govt is likely to come down hard on the guilty party. We have taken different paths in our social, economic and political development of our people. Only time will tell whether ours is a better or poorer model for the people.

Circular reasoning to the rescue

The appointment of Piyush Gupta as CEO of DBS has apparently been warmly received if the reports in the media are to go by. But the underlying sentiment that was not reported but can be sieved through by reading between the lines tells a different picture. This foreign talent fad or infatuation must have stirred the hornet nest of talented locals who see their aspirations being squashed once again. So there must be some way to explain away this great acquisition of a foreign talent that is deemed better than all the useless local talents. Siow Li Sen wrote that for those who are criticising the recruitment, let there be no worry. Piyush Gupta will become a citizen soon. So he will become a local talent, a Singaporean. How many will lap up this kind of excuse? And the better part, we went around the world, with high expectations and specifications for the most qualified candidate, with great talent and experience, only to claim that no change is needed in the new job. 'DBS does not need fixing'. No need to take needless risks. Then why can't a local be good enough? Oh, at home, he has to tackle a mountain of deposits to make them work and to regain Singaporeans' trust in the structured notes fiasco. Do you need a foreign talent to tackle these local issues? But, like it or not, the die has been cast. Now more analyses and reports on how good this move to hire a foreign talent was will be churned out. The spin doctors will be put to work to appease the hurt ego of the locals. In the meantime, it is better for local talents to find employment in foreign banks to prepare themselves for such jobs. Decorative kois are for display only. My bet is that our decorative kois are any time of higher quality than these foreign talents if given the opportunities. At least, while in schools and universities, our local talents would have outshone many of the foreign talents. What our local boys lacked are opportunities, exposure and experience. If we don't give these to them, who would?