How about a Tombang Scheme?

I would like to take up on what Kan Seng said about making the cake bigger so everyone can have a share of it. How about turning this NCMP scheme into a bigger scheme called the Tombang Scheme? The Tombang Scheme shall work this way. The best losers in a constituency or GRC shall be made NCMPs. In this way we can have 84 elected MPs and 84 NCMPs. Then we will have good quality debates in Parliament. And the ruling party has nothing to fear as when voting on any issue is needed, they could easily win by 84-0. The voters knowing that there will be guaranteed with oppositions in Parliament will just vote for the best party and the best party will likely get all the 84 MPs in. And we have a bigger cake to share with the opposition parties. And the opposition party MPs can make all the noises they want in Parliament. This could be an improved system from what we are having now. And if the NCMPs can prove that they are really good, the voters will vote for them in the future. This is good for the country, surely. It gives the people a chance to observe and assess the NCMPs before voting them in. Good huh?

Parliamentary debate is not schoolboy debate

How so? What is the difference between a parliamentary debate and a schoolboy debate. Let me figure. In the case of a school boy debate, the opposing teams will debate for or against an issue. And they stood by their positions. If they were to vote, both sides will vote accordingly. In a parliamentary debate, you can have opposing sides debating until their faces turned red or green. But when comes to voting, all can vote for one side. Then one starts wondering, why? There were two parties arguing and strongly believing in what they said. Then how come when they have to take sides, all took only one side? This is what parliamentary debate is all about. You just debate for the sake of debating, but they don't mean a thing. One can say no but vote yes. So I say, parliamentary debate is not schoolboy debate.

Let's be honest, its schoolboy debate

There were many clever arguments in Parliament yesterday in particular over the issue of NCMPs. The media lauded it as brilliant debate. I scratch my head and say, huh? Shanmugam told Sylvia Lim, Let's be honest, that the WP was afraid that their arguments in the election campaign could not last the scrutiny of a one day cooling period. I was waiting for Sylvia to say, Let's be honest, if the PAP could not convince the electorate after seven days of campaigning, one day of cooling would not help either. Let's be honest, for those who have made up their minds, one day of cooling period will not make any difference. And if it is really for people to think through carefully after what were said during the campaign, would one day be sufficient? Why not 3 days or 7 days? But I am going down to the level of schoolboy debate. And let's be honest, how many voters would really sit down and review what were said and take out a piece of paper to jot down the points before deciding who to vote for. Let's be honest, I do not see what is the dif with or without the one day cooling off period. No need clever arguments and going to Parliament over something that is so arbitrary. Let' be honest I can't find anything clever in the whole debate.

A remarkable comment

'...more Opposition voices might not improve the quality of Parliamentary debate.' With the standard of debate so high, not necessary really. I can agree with that. But I can't agree with the suggestion that the time given to NCMPs for debates be limited. What, NCMP cannot debate or not good enough to debate? How can a Parliamentary debate be meaningful if the NCMPs are not given the same time to debate with other MPs? Ok, NCMPs don't represent anyone so should not be given too much time. This sounds more reasonable. Let's give them enough time just to ask questions. That should be good enough. Aren't the purpose of NCMPs be that they be there to give an alternative voice? They can't vote and the only thing for them to do is to speak. Limiting their time to speak defeats the whole purpose of them being there. Wall flowers?

What problem is this?

‘This govt is truly hopeless. Not only has it squandered billions and billions on stupid schemes it has now allowed the property market to rise to unsustainable levels and create a disastrous lack of availability of homes. It has been aware of the DRAMATIC increase in overseas investment in residential property but wanted to shaft all those ignorant sheeple aka 'working families' even further. It's time to contact your local senator and demand they put an end to the rest of their mad plans. No more looking after foreigners before Australians. No more overseas property investors when Australians can not even purchase homes. No more large unskilled migration when Australians can not find work. No more supporting welfare shopping asylum seekers when Australian pensioners can barely afford food. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH.’ The above was reported in news.com.au. There is an uncanny similarity in what is happening in the Australian property scene and what is happening here. But the difference stops right there. The Australians are really facing a serious problem and they are very unhappy with the govt. On the contrary, we don’t really have any problem. If there is any problem, it is a happy one. The people are all laughing to the bank and inviting more foreigners to invest in our properties here. It is a win win situation. The foreigners speculate and make money from their property speculations. The Singaporeans are all happy that their properties are gaining in value. There are no losers. This is the big difference and the quality of the govt shows. We are so fortunate to have a good govt that could turn an otherwise bad situation into a happy one. Thumbs up to the govt, especially Mah Bow Tan, for making so many Singaporeans rich and happy, and to the property speculators too, both foreign and local. The Australians need to send a team of their govt officials to study how we did it.

It was fun and good for a laugh

Several PAP MPs spoke strongly against the principle behind NCMP and NMP. They ridiculed it as a backdoor entry to Parliament, elected by nobody, representing nobody and speaking for nobody. Basically they opposed the scheme. So did Low Thia Khiang and Sylvia Lim who opposed it for basically the same reasons. The inconsistency and contradictory stand of the opposition MPs were picked up by Kan Seng who questioned Low Thia Khiang on his inconsistent stand. Why opposing a scheme and still support it? Ya, how silly for people to oppose an issue on grounds of principle and support it still. Low Thia Khiang stood his ground and said he would resign if his party wants him to take up a NCMP position if he lost his election. And all the MPs had a good laugh. It was all fun, and wayang I supposed. Well at least Low Thai Khiang stood to his principle. This is something that is hard to come by. What about the NCMPs and NMPs who were lambasted for being backdoor entrants? The criticisms thrown at them were unkind and rude in many ways, lack of credibility and speaking for nobody except themselves. Did the NCMPs and NMPs stand up to defend their pathetic positions? Or did they allow the attacks to go on and accept that the criticisms were valid, that they don't really have any right or business to be there? Actually they were not the only ones to get in by the backdoor. Many got in in the same way and crowed like a cockerel that they were more equal than the NCMPs and NMPs. In reality they were there, by back door or front door, because of the system. It is the system that puts them there. And who voted for the system, the same cocks and hens who criticised the system. Is this also a joke or another wayang?

Is my impression correct?

Reading from the interviews with PAP MPs as reported in the ST, I got this impression that the PAP MPs do not think highly of backdoor MPs, ie NCMPs and NMPs. Does this implies that they do not agree with the system of bringing in non elected MPs, representing nobody, into Parliament? If this is so, would they dare to vote against the bill that is planning to increase the number of non elected MPs? Or would they just go along and vote for it despite expressing strong misgivings and being condescending to those backdoor MPs? Calvin Cheng is a great example of this 'disagree but be part of the system' syndrome. He accepted the appointment as a backdoor MP but spoke against it. Could we find people who will stand by their principles, take a stand on issues or things they don't agree and lump them? Or is this how our pragmatic people have been brought up to be, don't agree never mind lah, just accept it, kpkb a bit for show, and just play along? Is being strong about one's principle an important factor in a person's character or value system?

Should HDB dwellers pay property tax?

With the property prices shooting to the sky, many HDB owners are also celebrating their good fortunes for sitting in an ever appreciating property. Quietly in another corner the Inland Revenue is also celebrating as property tax will go up accordingly. And for those who cannot capitalise on their good fortunes, cause they only have that property to live in, they can only smile when reading how much their properties are worth now, but at the same time seeing their property taxes going up in real terms. The question is whether HDB dwellers should be paying property tax at all as their flats are technically on 99 year rental. The 99 year HDB leasehold is very different from a private 99 year leasehold that does not come with so many restrictions and regulations. It straddles somewhere between a genuine leasehold and a rental flat and the property tax paid should be much lower than what it is. For the moment I am not too sure of the formula. Is it based on rental potential or the market value of the flat? Even if it is based on rental value, different location fetches different rentals and most units cannot be fully sublet. The most sore group would be those that are living in their HDB flats but ended having to pay ever higher property taxes while not benefitting from any rental income. So, is higher value really good?

The Helix, a piece of art

The Helix is a piece of art good for walking on. Its utility value as a bridge is nothing more or less than placing two pieces of planks across the river. But looking at it from the point of view of a functional piece of art, one may agree that it is money well spent. Look at the surroundings, the Marina Sands, the new business and financial centre and all the glitz in this new downtown of the future, anything less will not be befitting of a place there. Definitely not two pieces of planks for sure. We have in the Helix a piece of engineering that deserved the time and money spent on it. And from the angle of arts, now we have a major piece of object to show the world. As a young chap, I had done many pieces of scrap metals trying to make them resemble art forms but to no avails. Little engineering skills and cheap material just would not do. You need high tech and good material to make it look really good. The closest piece of scrap art that my creation could match was the piece facing the NTUC building in Finlayson Green. I really hope that our workers have better taste in art appreciation than to put a piece of scrap metal in front of their multi million dollar headquarter. Well, it is just my layman impression of what a piece of scrap metal is. For the sophisticated art connoisseurs, that piece could still be a great piece of art and worth millions. I try imagining placing that piece side by side with the Helix and see the reaction of the public, layman who could not appreciate the beauty of objet d'art and could not see the difference between a piece of scrap and a piece of art. Their reaction, spontaneous, would be the best judge of what the two pieces symbolise. We have removed the slums and replaced them with pieces of fine arts. Soon we will have an open air museum and the tourists can go on a conducted tour downtown to look at the art pieces on the road sides.

The Chinese and Aussies are doing it

The Chinese may not be seen as a smart and sophisticated people vis a vis the Westerners in many areas, and particularly in finance. Whatever the Chinese are doing, the world will look at it with a sceptical eye. And Singaporeans too would not look up to the Chinese for things to emulate. When the Chinese started to curb their property bubble, we would probably say some silly things about it or simply ignore it. They did not know what they were doing. Peasants! But the Chinese have genuine fear that the skyrocketing property prices could derail their economy and possible social unrest. And they are doing all they can to curb this euphoria where the rich would get richer and the poor poorer. Never mind the Chinese. Now the Australians are also implementing measures to prevent their own version of property bubble. My first impression is, what's the fuzz? Australia is an under populated continent and can build all the houses for its people unlike this little piece of rock. And we are telling our people not to worry, plenty of land and we could take in more foreigners to help us to occupy the limitless land that we have. We are geniuses in this field. What are the Australians saying? 'We want to make sure that Australian working families are not being priced out of their own family homes. That is why we have acted in the way in whcih we have done....We want to make sure that foreign speculators are not going to force up prices for Australians seeking to buy their own home, buy their first home and we think this is the right course of action.' Said Prime Minister Kevin Rudd. Would we listen to the Australians, after all they are the kind of people we envy and like to follow? Or are we going to say the Australians are stupid. Property speculation can being in huge profits to pay themselves crazy. It is good, clean and easy money. The money can be used for many wonderful things. The Helix is a great example of the things we could do with the money that we made. Instead of putting two pieces of planks across the river, we could choose to spend may be hundreds of millions to put up the Helix. Both serving the same function. But one is just two pieces of cheap wood and another is a big piece of art where the people go 'Wow, wow, awesome!' I think it is a case of priorities. The Chinese and Australians share a common interest, to provide affordable housing for their people and not allowing speculators to make abundant profits to buy the next ten properties and then to buy the next 100 properties to grow their wealth. And we too share this interest, to provide affordable housing to our people as well. The only difference is that we did it so well that speculation and high property prices are welcomed. And our people are happy about it. No complains and no social unrest in the making. Maybe we can lend them our super talents to teach them how to do it and make all the easy money and keeping the people happy as well.

Ah Long to the rescue

The on going tussle between Fifa and our telcos does not seem to be going well. How could it be when one party has so much money overflowing out of its pocket and the other with salivas dripping all over and can't wait to lay its hands on the loot? Today the ST has reported that many parts of Singapore can receive the same broadcasts from Malaysia and Indonesia. That would mean part of the problem is solved or can be solved. No need to be held at ransom by Fifa anymore. And since we have the money, and money can solve all kinds of problems, let's see if our side is ingenious enough to seek the assistance of Ah Longs. No need to pay Fifa hundreds of millions of dollars. Just pay the Ah Longs $20m and he could easily come out with an amicable solution. Let me guess what $20m could do in the hands of Ah Longs. One, he could place them in the hands of his associates in Malaysia and Indonesia and get them to boost up the power of their broadcasts to enable Singaporeans to have good quality reception during the World Cup. Alternatively they could buy a booster and park it somewhere in the island to boost up the broadcasts of Malaysia and Indonesia during the game. Either way, Singaporeans will be able to watch their football live, at marginal cost to all. Win win solution the Ah Long way. Ah Long can be useful sometimes: )

No backdoor MPs

Parliament is geared up for hot debates in the next sitting when the issue of more NCMPs and NMPs are up for debate. I hope it will not degenerate into another question and answer session? I kind of fully agree with the remarks and sentiments of MPs expressed in the ST today. Why make a fuss of having more NCMPs and NMPs when what is needed is quality and not quantity? And why all these backdoor MPs? They don't represent anyone. MPs must be elected by the people, not entering Parliament by the backdoors through all kinds of schemes. An MP that is not elected by the people, is not elected by the people. Period. We need the people to ink in the ballot paper that this is the MP that they want to represent them. Without that, where is the consent of the people to say the MP represents them? NCMPs and NMPs did not earned their place in Parliament. I fully agree with all the MPs who think so. So what's the big deal to be in Parliament? I hope the MPs will take a strong stand in Parliament to remove all the NCMPs and NMPs if they are real in how they feel about the schemes. Please don't just ask questions and take the answers as the end of the story. Fight for your beliefs. If anyone don't think highly of the NCMPs and NMPs, say so when they have the chance to do so, in Parliament.

MAS asking for views on fund management operations

The MAS is reviewing the rules for fund management here and will like to 'consult the public within the next two weeks on proposals to enhance our regulatory regime, to ensure that it remains sound and responsive to the changing needs of the various stakeholders in the fund management industry'. I just have a few comments on this. The presence of fund management here must be for the good of the industry and not here just to suck away all the money from the innocent local investors by unfair practices in the form of preferential rules and regulations, use of technology, sheer size, unfair advantages etc etc. The MAS must ensure a level playing field for all players, big and small. The current practices of different commission rates, no commission rates for house trades giving them an outrageous unfair advantage over small traders must be reviewed. If this is not change, the small traders do not stand a chance and will be sent to the cleaners like many that are already hung and dried. The use of computer technology, programme trading that give the funds an advantage over the small traders too is grossly unfair. Script lendings for funds to exploit their trading strategies against the small investors is another thing that needs to be reviewed. It is different to say that small investors can also borrow scripts to short the market. The volume and tenacity when funds short the market can create havoc and fear among the small investors. Conflicts of interest is another dicey area that must be addressed. Funds buying and selling against clients or trading against clients interests, churning reports to buy when they are selling or vice versa. More bites against auditors or managers of IPOs to ensure that they do a professional job. So far they are getting away scot free when newly listed companies turned turtle within a few years or even months on listing despite the glowing reports and writeups during IPO launches. There are many more areas that the experts and regulators should know best to take this opportunity to provide a fair and equitable trading platform for all stakeholders, big or small. For the moment, the small traders are dead ducks waiting to be served at the dinner table.

Fatuous lust for foreign talents

Thou shalt not cast lusting glances at thy neighbour's talents. But if we do not do so then soon we will sink into the Straits of Singapore. In an island where there is a dearth of talents, only with the influx of foreign talents can we ever think of making it to the next generation. And this must keep going and going. While will are lusting at the foreign talents of other countries, now India is making us an offer that we cannot resist. They are willing to sacrifice their talents for us. They are saying, please take more of our talents. With this offer, all our local banks and GLCs will have no problem filling up all the MD positions. What India should propose is to swap their political talents with ours. One of our political talent for 100 of India's political talents. That should be a reasonable equation given the fact that our political talents are world best. And we can even expand our Parliament, providing more quality jobs for politicians. Make politicians and politiking a profession, with good salary, annual increments, route of advancement, promotion, and of course pension for life. When this is put in place, we will have the best politicians the world can find. Then we can do what India is doing, exporting our political talent to boost our GDP.

Trading talents

I read somewhere that one of the terms for more trades with India is that Singapore must take in more of their talents as a condition. I think this is a brilliant idea. Singapore shall use this model to negotiate with other countries where there is an abundance of talents by offering trade in exchange for their talents. There are many countries with a big supply of talents that they cannot make use of and are most willing to export to this talent dearth island. It will be a win win formula. We get all the talents that we need, and they get to get rid of all the talents they don't need. And the cream is that there will be more trade both ways. Great deals. America, Europe, Japan, even China and Indonesia all have plenty of talents that we need. And don't forget Malaysia too. We can change our tourist logo from Your Singapore to Your Talents. Come visit and see your talents working and prospering here.

An issue of right and popular

Sin Boon Ann shared some of his thoughts and angst for being an MP and having to make decisions that border between right and popular in an article in Today paper. He quoted the issue of building rental flats in his ward and the conflicting demands of his constituents to want to keep things as they are and not wanting the negative aspects of rental flats in their midst. Sin Boon Ann’s right in this case is about doing something that is necessary as against something that is popular. The building of rental flats in an estate is unpopular but right in the context of meeting the needs of people who can only rent. It is like locating a funeral parlour or crematorium in an estate. They have to be located somewhere if there is a need for it. Not your estate, then someone’s estate. I don’t thing the conflict between doing something right and popular is that big a problem. Why doesn’t he discuss about doing something which is right to the govt but not right to the people? Something which the govt think is right but the people don’t think so, or worst, affecting the people’s right? One good example is the people’s money in the CPF. The govt may think that it is right to keep the people’s money under all kinds of excuses, minimum sum, CPF Life, Medisave etc etc. What about the people’s right to their money and how to use and when to use their money? Don’t the people have any right or say to their money? In this case there is the people’s right versus the govt’s right on what is the right thing to do. Would Sin Boon Ann or any MP want to share their concern, views or misgivings or conscience prick on this issue? Just because the govt think that this is right, the right thing to do, it does not mean that the people also think so. And this issue is much more serious than the siting of rental flats.

The gag order

It is reported in the ST that a local club is going to impose a gag order on its members to prevent them from speaking about club matters to the public, otherwise disciplinary action will be taken against the member. Some other clubs interviewed too were surprised that this kind of thing is happening in this enlightened city with enlightened beings. Gagging means nothing said, nothing heard, so no problem. On second thought, I think it is a good idea. If no one is talking, there will be no issues to talk about, and all will be peace under heaven. It is only when people start to talk about an issue that an issue becomes and issue. Look at the internet, if there is no internet, many issues will be long forgotten. Today it is reported that Indonesia is trying to curb the growing influence of the internet, by gagging I supposed. Let's return to the old world of saying nothing, seeing nothing, hearing nothing and doing nothing. Life will definitely be better, and more peaceful. If anyone got murdered, let it be. Don't say anything, and no one will know about the murder. Then everyone will say, see, no murder. The world shall progress to the world of silent movies.

A fare cut, a fare cut!

Public transport fare to go down by 2.5%, reported Today. Cheaper transport fare from July 3, reported mypaper. So we have a fare cut, a fare cut, or a fare hike! Which is which? I copied below extract from "Blowin' in the wind" blog for ease of comparison. The Straits Times reports public transport fares will dip by 2.5 per cent from July 3, but savings will vary from commuter to commuter. The fact is fares are going up --- appreciably for longer journeys. While the minimum fare for the first 3.2km on an airconditioned bus is going up by just two cents from 69 cents to 71 cents, commuters will have to pay up to 10 cents more for every kilometre after that. And it is going to make a difference. The longest trip now on an air-conditioned bus with an EZ-link card costs S$1.65 cents, according to the SBS Transit website. The same trip with the same card will cost S$1.94 from July 3, according to the Public Transport Council. So we have a fare cut for some and a fare hike for some. So, shall we call it a fare cut or a fare hike? Beats me really.

SGX asking for public views

The SGX is asking the public for views on whether it is ok to let banks become trading members, ie full time brokers to trade in stocks. Is this a fair proposition to ask the public? In the case of locking up the people's CPF savings through minimum sum, CPF Life, locking them up in the Medisave, the public's view was not sought. They just do it without any need for consultation when it should as the people would have a lot to say on their own money and things affecting them directly. The issues were then more easily understood. Here we have a financial issues that have implications and consequences beyond the layman in the street. Only the academics or finance professionals would be able to give any reasonable views and inputs. But these people are unlikely to waste their time as their time and effort are expensive. So who does SGX expect to respond to their invitation for views on such a technical issue? It will be more meaningful for Sheng Siong to ask the public if it is ok for them to take over the wet markets and change them into something else. It would be more meaningful if Teo Ho Pin and other MPs affected by this wet market issue to ask their constituents for views and feedback. The public can only make reasonable feedback on things that they can comprehend at their level. The talents at SGX should be in a better position to decide whether the banks should be allowed to dabble in stocks. Is there a conflict of interests? Should banks be allowed to deviate from their core business into other high risk areas? How would it affect the businesses of other financial institutions? Would there be unfair advantages or unlevel playing field? How would it affect the jobs in the industry? How would it affect the stock market as a whole? And there are many more issues related to this move, ethical, moral and administrative etc etc. The answer is best answered by the professionals paid to do the job.

Goldman Sachs made US$3.46 billion in a quarter

There you have it, the most profitable bank in the world. How could a bank make that kind of money in 3 months? What kind of business is it in? I don't think the most profitable casino can make this kind of money in three months. Must take out my hat to Goldman Sachs. And they too were recipients of public funds during the financial crisis, and nearly collapsed. How could the turnaround be so dramatic? I am very sure they are not doctoring their books. The profit must be real. So where did they make this kind of money? CDOs, hedge funds, stock markets? When they can make this kind of money, someone out there is losing big time. And many broking houses are recommending a buy on Goldman Sachs despite it being sued by the SEC. Who is wiser? It is good to believe that money can be made so easily. All the banks must adopt the Goldman Sachs business model if they want to make this kind of money.