Sunday, March 07, 2010 Temasek's recruiting spree at the Indian Institute of Management Calcutta (IMM-C). This article is posted in Singapore News Alternative. And there is another article there by Seah Chiang Nee, More Grads join jobless queue, published in The Star. Putting the two articles side by side, what can one make out of it?

The badge of pride and pedigree

The princelings of China are emerging everywhere, and very successful. Their pedigree background is a badge of honour and also a badge to a smoother path to material success. It gives hint to an age old culture when princes and royal ties were equated with power and status. This is a big contrast to the days of communism when poverty and peasant background were brandished as a badge, as a true red communist. And in the days of the flower people of the 60s, rich kids rejected their affluent trappings to smoke pots and donned filthy and tattered clothes, living in the parks, as the way of life. Rejection of society and wealth was the in thing. Scions of the rich left their homes and families to look poor and smelly. This reminds me of a confrontation between the Soviet leader Khruschev and China's Zhou En Lai. Khruschev came from humble and peasant background and was very proud of it. His badge of pride and pedigree. Zhou En Lai's background was from the gentry and landlord class. And both became communist leaders. Khruschev used to sneer at Zhou En Lai for his rich background and proclaimed to everyone that his was of poverty and peasantry. We were both communist, but from different classes. Zhou En Lai agreed, yes we were both communist, I was rich and you were poor. And we have both betrayed our class. And they toasted to that.

High pay who pays

The Diary of a Singaporean Mind has a pretty meaty article on the issue of high pay by the bank robbers in America and did a little correlations with the high pay in the Singapore context. I quoted a small extract of his quote: Kenneth Feinberg[Link] is Obama's "pay czar". After the US govt bailed out major banks, Fienberg was appointed to make sure bankers don't go back to their old bad habits of paying themselves tens of millions given the outrage among the general public for the bailout. Yesterday Fienberg appeared on CNBC because Maria Bartiromo was doing a segment on Wells Fargo executives wanting to double their own pay. Because Wells Fargo had already returned the TARP money, Feinberg has no juristriction over them and can't do anything about it - all he could do was give his opinion on the matter. This was what he said. Very often bankers would come to him to authorise fat bonuses or pay hikes saying that the executive is "especially talented" or he might be poached up by a foreign bank. He would ask for proof this "talent" and in every single case he found the person replaceable without loss to the company. It was mostly, in his own words,"spin" - bankers over the years have been very creative at manufacturing justifications for their high salaries even as they were about to cause a lot of economic pain to the rest of the population through their careless lending. Buffett asked why the CEO pay has gone from 50 times the lowest paid worker in the company in the 1950s to 500 then to 5000 times - is the CEO today 100 times more productive today? Not possible. The low down people must never ignore this issue of high pay. It comes from everyone's pocket. The banks are not paying the bankers. It is the ordinary folks. The high pay checks of the banks must come from more profits and this will be squeezed all the way down to the people in the street who thought they have nothing to do with it. But they do. Everything will be more costly, services and goods, to keep the robbers fed. Banks cannot feed the robbers with 1 or 2% interest rates. They must schemed all kinds of toxic instruments to muster enough money to pay themselves. At the worst, they will cook the books, hide the losses until it cannot be hidden anymore. It is so easy to churn the books from loss making to profit making, like Greeece. And oh, most of the major banks were in the same boat. That's how they got busted and needed public fund to write off their debts. The immediate turnaround to profitability in the hundreds of billions is fiction. Something fishy must be going on inside those bank books.

What if HDB bungled?

According to Mah Bow Tan, the following are myths. 1. There are not enough HDB flats to meet demand 2. HDB flats are unaffordable 3. PRs push prices 4. Private property owners push up prices 5. Subletting of HDB flats is rampant. The above are reported in the ST today. And he gave his reasons to dismiss them as myths. So I will add them into my column as myths of Singapore. The following facts are either quoted from official sources or are well knowned, or maybe perceived wrongly. 1. In 2008, there were 79,200 new PRs and 20,500 new citizens. 2. In 2009, the numbers were 59,500 and 19,900 respectively. 3. Our population has increased by more than a millionn in the last decade. 4. Property prices are shooting to the sky with HDB flats tripling their values in less than the recent 10 years. 5. Mah Bow Tan said he was caught by surprise of the strong demand in properties. 6. HDB is scurrying to build more flats with 13,500 last year and another 12,000 this year. All these will take another 3 or 4 years to be ready. How many flats did HDB built in the last 5 years? Has HDB bungled in the supply and demand of public housing for the people in the last 10 years? I think the official answer is no. Then why the unhappiness especially among young and new home owners? Myth? During the tight supply of flats and surging demand caused by high population growth, have there been young people who failed to get their flats over these years and were booted out of the public housing system because their combined income went past the $8,000 ceiling imposed by HDB? If there are, is it their fault or HDB's fault? These young people are now caught in a dilemma, disqualified from HDB and not rich enough to pay for private properties. So how? Would they be pissed off with the HDB and the govt? The answer will come in the next General Election if their housing needs are not solved by then. Maybe their needs are just a myth and all will still be voting happily for the PAP. Maybe not. Only the result will tell the true story. In the meantime Mah Bow Tan can stick to his position and fight his election in Tampines, and win.

The tragedy of being old and lazy

It is a tragedy to become old and lazy in paradise. When one is old is already bad. Old and lazy!...tsk. tsk. In the past, being old, one can look forward to a well earned retirement. Today, one cannot afford to grow old and retire. One needs to work till death. And if one is old and lazy some more, no one is going to help you. Wake up lazy Singaporeans. But for those who cannot grow old, then it is a different story. They can continue to dismiss the old Singaporeans, especially the old and lazy ones, as useless rubbish. Can anyone recommend me on how to stay young forever?

America tightening the ropes on credit card robbery

The Fed is proposing to limit the excessive late fees imposed by credit card companies on their card holders. An example of the change is that 'a person cannot be made to pay more than the sum he is owing for late fees. So if one is owing $20, the card company cannot charge the bugger for $60 as late fee. Holycow, I thought this is only a decent thing to do. You mean they have been allowing such robbery to go on for so long and just work up to it? And there are several other commonsensical changes to limit the credit card companies from robbing their cardholders, like suka suka imposing higher interest rate, or the number of days that the payment was late before penalty can be imposed. But regulators complained that the Fed forget to lower the absurdly high interest rate of 2% monthly, which is quite similar to what loan sharks are charging. But I think the Fed's hands are tied. The bankers and credit card companies need the huge interest and profits to pay themselves billions in bonuses, and this must come from somewhere. Talking about robbers, I was robbed by a local bank of several hundred dollars in a dormant account which I had forgotten because of the $2 monthly fee charge for anything less than $1,500 left in the account. Some people are reviving this complain, that people's bank must also take care of the small people. But the message is that if you cannot have $1,500 in your account, please don't 'kar chow' the big banks. They got no time for small people. And since we are the admirers and blind followers of the American system and anything American is good, would the credit card changes in America be followed here?

The great market forces at work in Sengkang

The Sengkang executive condo site was awarded to the top bidder at $315 psf. And the likely selling price will be over $650 psf. So no one should complain about the high sale price. It is all determined in an open and fairly bidded exercise. And the price final price will be determined by the highest bidder. Oops, no, by market forces. No one shall be blamed for the surging prices for public flats even if the developer bid it to $1000 psf. It is just market forces. Demand and supply. What kind of demand is there on limited land available? Last year, there were 59,500 new PRs and 19,900 new citizens. How are these numbers to be translated into demand for housing? Beats me. Very difficult to compute or guess. Even the professionals would not know.

Are the grievances real?

There seems to be a lot of criticisms against the govt policies, and people felt that they are disadvantaged. How true are these? Are they just noises from a small unhappy minorities or are they genuine? Read the main media everything seems so rosy and good. Everyone seems to be very happy making their millions, buying expensive cars, going for holidays, and still jamming up at property launches. I think the PAP has nothing to fear. Grousing and kpkb by small groups of unhappy people will not be enough to swing the votes against them. They will still ride to power with comfortable majority.

New immigrants for Civil Defence

40 years ago, when I walked the streets of London, I could pick up a newspaper and threw 2 shillings into a box and walked away. No one was there to guard the money. Today, I don't think we can leave newspapers on our streets and expect people to drop money into it and the money still remains there for the rightful owner at the end of the day. We are affluent and may not think too much of a couple of dollars. Would any newspaper vendor dare to do this? Would anyone dare to ask foreign workers to look after their homes when they are away on holiday? There could be some exceptions and pre conditions. I would not. I would not even invite them to my home to familiarise themselves with what is inside my home, with extremely rare exceptions of course. If we can farm the guarding of our homes and country to foreigners, we don't need citizen soldiers. I cannot imagine if security guard agencies are still hiring ex convicts or people with criminal records to be guards.

The best speaker in Parliament

Guess who? It hit me straight away when I tuned in to the 9.30pm news on Channel 5. Lim Swee Sway was propounding his Theory of Productivity in Parliament and the audience was dumbfounded. The camera panned across the House and the MPs and NMPs were wide eyed, mouth opened, and written on their faces was the sign of shock disbelief. They listened to him intensely and probably thinking to themselves how come they did not know of such a great Theory. Ok, I shall not put words into the Minister mouth. He did not call it the Theory of Productivity. I will rate this 'Theory of Productivity' in the same category as the Theory of Relativity in its profound and impactful implications. Let me put it briefly, 1% increase in productivity of 3m workers equals 30,000 workers (I can understand this part) and this can be translated into something like 50% of something, or call it output. He went on so fast, with so many numbers that I could not grasp what they were. I scoured the papers this morning to confirm the numbers Swee Say quoted, but those buggers did not think it newsworthy to be printed. Nothing was reported. I can't believe it My lesser brain could not understand the implications of 2% or 3% productivity growth. Now I understand. If 1% productivity growth can lead to 50% of whatever growth or output, 2% will give 100% of whatever! This is simply phenomenal. Forgive me for not knowing what this 50% is all about. But I will try to trace this amazing speech and theory and correct this post when I find it. Whatever, Swee Say was able to captivate the attention of all the Parliamentarians when no one could. PS. I appeal to the Straits Times to print Swee Say's speech in full.

Selling snake oil to gullible Asians

British insurer Prudential is tapping sovereign wealth funds in China and Singapore to help finance its 35.5 billion dollar buyout of US insurance giant AIG's Asian arm, a report said Tuesday. It said the Singaporean and Chinese sovereign wealth funds had not made a final decision but their response was positive...From Sydney Morning Herald I hope we have learnt our lesson and stop buying more snake oil products when nobody dares to touch. All the oranges bought so far are lehmons. If we ever commit to another lehmon and lose another few billions, it is like begging to be screwed.

Myth 216 - The Rajaratnam Myth

In a main article in the Editorial section of the ST today, Kishore Mahbubani wrote an article in praise of S Rajaratnam, one of the key founding fathers of modern Singapore. He lamented at the lack of interest and knowledge of this pioneering leader of our country, or city. In honour of Rajaratnam's great contributions to the city or country, Kishore suggested that we should create more myths around this man for posterity and our history. I will not disagree with him for wanting to honour our great leaders of the past and to remember them fondly for the good things they did. But why myth, a word that he agrees, connotes very negative feelings and meaning. The Myths of Rajaratnam! Down the road we may even create the Myths of Goh Keng Swee and the Myths of Lee Kuan Yew. I want to protest and disagree with him on the word myth. Kishore is a great artist in the use of words. But I would rather Kishore choose the word legend instead. Legends may also not be true and can be created, dressed up, but the feelings are more praiseworthy and positive. The Legends of Davy Crockett, the Legends of Huang Fei Hong, the Legends of Rajaratnam, the Legends of Goh Keng Swee, the Legends of Lee Kuan Yew! Sound better right? The Myths of Rajaratnam! Sounds awful to me.

Lower standard of Chinese for easy learning

There is an interesting article in Viewpoints in mypaper by a Chua Chern Nee on teaching and learning Chinese in Singapore. Many parents have been so frustrated and desperate as their children just could not learn the language or find it so difficult and boring. And many fled to foreign countries where they don't have to learn Chinese. And we have come out with a solution, lower standard of learning to fit the ability of different students. The writer quoted the case of a Korean boy who came here without any background in basic Chinese and he aced the subject after 10 months of learning the language. How could this happened? My guess is that the Korean boy ate rice as his staple food. And for those who have difficulties learning Chinese, it must be their diet, eating too much kantang. Maybe changing their diet will make a difference. As for those who went overseas, it may become compulsory to learn Chinese as a second language in America and Australia in time to come. Ok, it is a new myth. I like creating myths and I have a column dedicated to myths, all 200+ of them. And I am going to add one more, the Rajaratnam Myth.

The correct definition of Productivity

There have been too many confusing definitions of Productivity. Some believe that Productivity means up skill, re skill, multi skill, be cheaper, better and faster. These are myths. We have been doing all these for so many years but our Productivity remains flat. I think my definition to increase price like my char kway teow example is better. And some workers think that slogging longer hours, work harder or staying longer in the office to show the boss are equivalent to higher productivity. Here is the correct version by Amy Khor. Productivity = doing more but in the same timespan or less. She forgot to post her credential as an example of what is higher productivity. She is MP, Mayor, Chairman of Reach, Chairman of countless committees, Advisors to countless committees, her own profession, and maybe, I am not sure, directors of some companies. And she did that within her 24 hours a day like everyone of us. Now that is productivity, doing more in the same timespan. So those office workers who stay behind to slog late into the night, please think again. You are very unproductive, doing the same amount of work or a little more, but taking so much time. And those who are still thinking of multi skill and mult tasking, please do it within the same timespan or less. Now I can see the brilliance and productivity of people who are directors of many companies. The more directorships or chairmanship the more productive.

That's the way it is! Ah ha, ah ha, ah ha....

China has declared its intention to be the world's number one military power, to overtake the USA. And this ambition will be reflected in the new military budget to be announced. The confidence in the way the Chinese are standing up to face the oppressive bully is a sign that they are already on par with the US. Yes, the US may still have a big edge in military hardware and technology. But China has enough to neutralise the threat of an open war with the Americans. Both can only claim superiority in numbers and on papers. Both knows that they cannot afford to fight each other. They will simply wipe each other out of this world, together with the rest of the world. What does this open declaration of China means? It says that China will no longer kowtow to the US and will stand up for its rights and will take on the US head on in any challenge or threats the Americans throw at them. The Chinese are not going to accept all kinds of rubbish attacks quietly. There will be more tic for tac as the US gets more uncomfortable with China challenging its dominant position and status. What is damaging is that the US will have to spend more for defence which will hasten its downfall when its coffer is already empty. The American strategy is for 10 times or 100 times superiority in hardware and soldiers. And for every dollar or soldier the Chinese add on to their arsenal, the US is going to pay 100 times more. And the US just cannot compete in this expensive game anymore. It can continue to publish its rhetorics that China is an aggressive power and will threaten the smaller countries. Many no longer believe this threat any more except the unthinking tin pot dictators of fictitious demoncracy countries. The aggressive nature of the Americans and the wars it is waging against small countries around the world is testament to its hostile policy of bully small nations. They even force peaceful nations to go to war with them, to share the killings and the guilt, with hands dripping with Arab and Muslim bloods. Go for it China. It will be good for the rest of the world, to keep the bully in check. And to prevent more regime changes and interference with other countries domestic politics.

Can we accept 3% productivity growth?

With the best talents in the world, in monetary terms of course, can we accept 3% productivity growth as our target? I believe we are not paying peanuts for average talents. And we have been told that the last few years of growth were contributed by the foreign workers. And should we be happy and claim to have done well if we can get 2% or 2.5% growth? I am still pondering over this very ambitious goal of 3%, like climbing Mount Everest. Didn't I say that a char kway teow stallholder could increase his productivity by 17% if he raises his price by 50c? Maybe we are being modest and by the end of next year we will declare an achievement of 8%.

Productivity at its lowest ebb

For the past decade or so our productivitiy has reached a point of zero, save only by the influx of foreign workers. They contributed to practically all the growth numbers to our economy. Taking them out of the equation our growth is zero, yes zero. That's why everyone in the know is so grateful to the foreign workers. I am not going to ask what have the supertalents contributed if our growth came from the low down and poorly paid foreign workers. Now we are going to increase or boost productivity. And it seems so simple, a few training courses will do it after languishing for all these years. I think there are easier ways to improve productivity than training courses. Just follow the examples of the property industry. Every 4 or 5 years, the price could be double. That should be the kind of productivity numbers we be looking for. How to go about it? We used to call it asset inflation. But there are many areas that we can inflate the prices, the consumers just pay. By increasing the prices of things and services here and there, productivity will simply go up proportionally. A plate of char kway teow can be increased from $3 to $3.50, giving a 17% increase in productivity without having to do anything except changing the price tag. Some measures could be more ingenuine, like erecting another few toll gates and money will keep rolling in. That is productivity. One thing that will reduce productivity and should not be thought of is pay rise. Any increase in pay will definitely lower productivity unless there is also an increase in goods or services produced, or increase in price. The latter must be more than the hike in pay. Whenever the rental goes up, the stall holders simply raise their prices, several percentages more than the rental hike. So the productivity of the landlords and the stall holders also go up disproportionately. Now we can understand why stallholders are not complaining. They constantly raise their productivity to improve their income. I must add that this kind of productivity growth is only possible in a monopolistic or near monopolistic environment, or insular market when supple and demand can be managed.

Talents or changing fortunes?

Harvard, Stanford, MIT, Princeton, Yales, Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Steve Jobs and all the eminent academics and intellectuals and financial gurus, are what America is famous for. It is a land of talents and world best institutions nurturing more best brains for the country and the world. What people did not want to see or acknowledge is that America is turning into a huge Titanic waiting to be sunk. America is now running in trillions of debt which it believes confidently that it could pay now or later. And it is still spending daily in the billions on wild hunting adventures in the Middle East and military excursions in the high seas, thinking that it is an Empire ruling the world and it needs to be in every corner of the world, with its soldiers and guns guarding the interests of the Empire. It took America more than 200 years of uninterrupted development and growth to reach this peak of achievements. And it took America the last thirty years to become the most corrupt nation in the world, with corruption concealed under a veil of respectability and legal framework. It is all legal, when all the 'knows who' have their hands in the cookie jar, and taking whatever they deemed fit, under the spotlight, and smiling to the banks. From Congressmen, bankers and CEOs, all are in for the quick bucks, grabbing everything they can that are within their control. Overseas they are sending our their armies of hedge funds to suck away the liquidity in foreign markets using technologies and the heavy hands of big bucks. They steam rolled the stockmarkets of the world to fill their pockets with instant millions and billions. In short, America’s brilliant minds are focussed on making instant billions for themselves at the risk of bankrupting America and countries that naively welcomed them and their system of operations with open arms. On the other hand, China is guarded and is carefully guarding what it has built up over the last 30 years. No, they will not blindly let in the Americans to mess up their economies and financial system. In the last 30 years, unknown peasant leaders from unknown universities that were partially ruined during the years of revolution have turned around a poverty stricken agriculture economy to compete with America for world supremacy. They are now number two, coming from nowhere. Until recently, what is Beida, Tsinghua, Jiaotong, Zhejiang, Nanjing, names of universities that were not even ranked, and could never smell the prestige of the Ivy League universities in America and their strings of Nobel Laurette and prominent thinkers and professionals. But the products of these universities, many still unknown, are now running a tight ship and running at good speed to challenge America as an economic power. While America is in debt of several trillions, China has surplus in its reserves of several trillions. Is it talents or fortune changing, or winds of change, that a country blessed with all the finest talents and a system of education that is churning out the best brains for tomorrow, is running aground or out of steam, while a third world country, rising from the ashes, with little known universities and talented individuals is giving it a run for its money? Are the Chinese more talented than the Americans or does China have more talents than the America? The answer is an obvious no. It must be fortune smiling on them. When fortune favours, even a beggar can become a king. When fortune smiles, whatever touched will be turned to gold. When fortune frowns upon the best, no matter how well conceived are the plans, no matter how talented are the executors, they will failed. Pundits are expecting China to overtake America in the near future. Could it really happen with America hoarding an abundance of talents and resources and a superior infrastructure in all areas, except finance and govt? One is infested with crooks and another with dunces. Will fortune smile for China and imbue it with more talents? So far none can be spoken of as talent in the American sense. The only Chinese talent is probably in America, in Yahoo.

Stop the crap about relative affordability logic

Several MPs are going to Parliament to kpkb about housing affordability. They are going to question HDB about its original role in providing affordable housing for the masses, high prices, supply and demand, inefficient system and allowing rich private property owners to buy HDB flats. These are reported in the ST today. Are they crazy or what? Do they take all the kpkbs in the internet seriously and really think that there is a problem? Didn't they read the reports of HDB and Mah Bow Tan about how affordable HDB flats are and how efficient and perfect the system is? Even this morning, two eminent scholars from NUS Dept of Real Estate, Tu Yong and Yu Shi Ming, reported that 'Housing in Singapore still affordable'. And they have authoritative figures to prove their point. How could MPs ignore such well research reports even if they don't believe in the comments of politicians? Unbelieveable! Why did these two academics say that housing is affordable here? They compared housing data of London and Hongkong and found our data much better than theirs. 'In terms of affordability, Singapore has achieved a lower housing price to income ratio. On the whole, the figures reveal that the housing system here does deliver comfortable and affordable housing to the majority of Singaporeans.' Brilliant conclusion. Flawless arguments backed by indisputable facts. So, who is still complaining about housing here not affordable? The MPs should better withdraw their intended questions in Parliament. They are going to get the same answers. Period. According to the two academics, Hongkong and London's housing ratio are 19.8 and 7.1 respectively while ours is 5.8. Housing ratio is housing price to median annual household income. See, ours are cheaper and more affordable. Tiok boh? In terms of comfort, we have 27 sq m for one person while Hongkong and greater London have 12.5 and 31.9 sq m per person. Ok London has bigger space than us because Europeans believe that comfort means more space. Don't compare with Australia when comfort means 300 sq m per person. That is not comparing apple with apple. Using this kind of #$%@ logic of relativity, when Hongkong's housing ratio is 30, then we can push up the prices of HDB flats to 20 and pat ourselves that we are still cheaper. And when Hongkong is squeezing their people into 5 sq m dog kennel, we can build smaller flats and sell at higher prices and say we are still comfortable. The same logic goes to the toxic bonds. Other people are selling it, especially the West, then it should be ok for us. The Americans are designing their stock markets to fleece the small investors with programme trading, and unfair advantages for the big funds to cheat the small investors, would these also be acceptable for us? Can we use a more independent set of criteria of our own to define what is affordable and comfortable for our people instead of relatively logic and shifting goal posts? My simple definition is 30% of one income and repayable in 20 years and a space of 50 sq m person. No space? Who is the bum that said we have a lot of space? Or stop the influx of more immigrants to this little piece of rock. Our population density is now more than Hongkong, 6,814 to 6,460 and greater London's 4.761. Want to make it worst? It is madness. And some MPs going to Parliament to ask why so many traffic congestions on the road? Wait till the lunatics increase the population to 8 million, then you will know what is congestion. Now it is so good, relatively speaking of course. Can't call it congestion. Even the packed MRT trains are soooo comfortable.

Kenneth calling for abolition of GRC

I totally and vehemently disagree with this call to abolish GRCs. Yes, it used to be advantageous to the PAP to run in GRCs and with strong ministers carrying weak and newbie MPs into parliament. That was long long ago. History. The ball game today is completely different. The GRCs are no longer that formidable and favourable to the PAP. I can sense fear in the vulnerability of GRCs. What could happen today is that GRCs would be the nemesis of weak ministers, and there are quite a few, and the GRCs will present them to the oppositions, plus the weak and strong MPs. Looking at the mood and situation today, two or three GRCs could easily go to the oppositions. And with a few more if nothing changes from now till the GE. The opposition should just go with the GRC system. The time is never better than now. Believe me, the GRCs are favouring the oppositions instead.