6.9m, try feeling the weight

What is 6.9m going to be like in 2030? A 4 member family unit will mean 400,000 flats to house an increase of 1.6m people. This could mean two Tampines estates or equivalent land needed at least. And assuming 10% of these 400,000 households will be car owners that will be 40,000 cars on the road and more roads and parking spaces needed, and 40,000 more COEs.

If each household has a school going child, there will be 400,000 more school children running around, needing transport and schools. How many more polytechnic and university places are needed?

If each of these household is a two income family, 800,000 more jobs will need to be created.

If each family eat 4 eggs daily, 1.6m more eggs must be laid by the chickens, daily.

Just think about the consumables and multiply them by 1.6m, a lot more consumption will add on to the economic numbers.

And all this will be piled on to the already congested little islands we are living in.

Are these what we want, progress, growth, well being? Or it is all about congestion, inflation, competition, stress and strains, working and working and working for a little shoe box apartment? By then the size of flats will be determined by the hard realities around us, 6.9m will dictate your life and decide what kind of life you will be living.

Tomorrow is the Protest Rally at Hong Lim Park, 4pm. Will you be there?

Remisiers rushing to pass exam?

This is the big title, I mean printed in very very big fonts in the ST, of Goh Eng Yeow’s article about remisiers rushing to sit for an exam that probably will not be held again. The exam, called Module 6A, is needed if remisiers are to execute trades for their clients on Specified Investment Products, which also read as dangerous or highly complex products. This requirement came about after the Lehman bonds or toxic products sold and many investors got badly burnt. The MAS now wants to ensure that investors and remisiers are fully aware of the complexities of these products and the high risk that they are taking when trading in them.

So remisiers must pass this exam, to equip them with sophisticated knowledge of these products, and to be in a position ‘to advise their clients’ when trading these products. This advising role of remisiers, with the passing of the module, they would be more professional in executing such trades. And since both clients and remisiers are professionally qualified, they should bare the risk should things turn foul and don’t go and kpkb with the authorities. This is now not a case of willing buyer willing seller, but informed and professionally trained buyers and sellers, and with equally professionally qualified remisiers to make sure things are handled professionally. I am also not sure how would these changes make the trading of SIP products safer. But it must be a good step forward.

What I am puzzled is that if passing an exam on this module is essential to executing SIP products, shouldn’t the exam be held regularly, maybe once or twice a year, or is this the last time that such an exam will be held?

The other matter that is new to me is that most brokerages have central buyers that execute trades like foreign stocks for the clients of remisiers as part and parcel of the system. And there has never been an issue about the commissions going back to the remisiers. Why is it that should central buyers have to assist in the trading of SIP products, that the commission becomes an issue, who should the commission goes to? The general sharing formula is 60:40 or 55:45 in favour of the company with the remisiers bearing the bad debt risks. So, with SIP products, new commission sharing formulas were being floated with some brokerages hinting to taking the full commission for themselves or maybe a higher percentage than the 60%. And there is also a question of risk, who is going to bear the risk of bad debts?

Why shouldn’t the brokerages continue with the central buyer system to assist remisiers in the execution of SIP trades, incidentally trading foreign stocks in overseas bourses used to be classified as SIP for a while, and maintain the same commission sharing formula? The other point is that such trades, now mainly high risks derivatives and ETF products need well trained professionals who are dealing with such products on a full time basis to be able to provide the level of expertise to their clients.

Passing Module 6A and executing derivatives and SIP products as a part of the main business to me is grossly inadequate relative to the full time traders or central buyers handling such businesses. The highly complex products and the high risks expected would really need very much more care than just passing an exam. It is a full time thing, requiring a lot of expertise and attention and complex computations and monitoring of the movements of such products unlike stocks and shares. A little exception is the ETFs which are technically safer products as they are derived from a basket of blue chip stocks in a market. Of course some of these products could be designed differently and can be risky and complex as well.

Would the sitting and passing of Module 6A be a game changer that makes the risk in trading SIP products more bearable or the remisiers be more professional? More knowledgeable is not necessary the same as more professional. Would it be better for such trades to be done by the central buyers?

Is there really an issue in the apportioning of the commission? Would the business or income of remisiers who missed taking this exam be affected? How many clients are really active in trading SIP products? Would the livelihood of remisiers be affected if they did not sit for this exam?

Selfish Meritocracy – Goh Chok Tong

“We do not want a society whose citizens seek to advance their own interests without a care for others, or worse, at the expense of others. I call this ‘selfish meritocracy’. It is up to those of us who can, to reach back and help those behind to climb the ladder with us, and not to pull up the ladder behind us.”

“Those who have risen to the top owe the greatest responsibility to help the weaker in society. A ‘compassionate meritocracy’ can help us build a resilient and inclusive society. A ‘selfish meritocracy’ will divide us and ruin our society.” – Goh Chok Tong

What is Chok Tong saying? Why did Chok Tong make these remarks? Is he saying that some people are practicing selfish meritocracy? Or is this just a general comment, there is no such thing but just a warning that this can happen and should be avoided? The consequence is a divided and ruined society, he said.

Assuming that Chok Tong is acknowledging this problem, what is he or the Govt going to do about it? Would those that are advancing their own interests without a care for others be taken to task and the process be stopped? It must be as the consequence according to Chok Tong is a ruined society and surely he and the Govt would not want that to happen.

And there is this complaint by many concerned Singaporeans, by the retrenched or out of job PMETs, even by the MOM, that FOREIGNERS are practicing selfish meritocracy here with Singaporeans the silent victims, losing their high paying jobs to foreigners being brought in to replace them. Actually this is more than selfish meritocracy. It is a concerted effort to get rid of Singaporeans and replaced with their own kind and has nothing to do with meritocracy.

Can I say that there are now two problems, one, high achieving Singaporeans are practicing selfish meritocracy to benefit themselves at the expense of less able Singaporeans and the question is, why is this allowed to happen? And why allowed to happen if the Govt knows about it?

The second problem of FOREIGNERS practicing more than selfish meritocracy, intentional and preconceived acts to replace Singaporeans with their own kind is now being tackled by Tan Chuan Jin and the MOM. How much has been done and how effective were the measures taken to improve the lot of Singaporeans that fell victims to this is yet to show itself in a big way. How long will it take to get rid of FOREIGNERS guilty of this malpractice in our own country against our very own citizens? Or is the Govt adopting a gentle touch and hoping that things will improve, and how long will it take to improve? Would the jobless PMETs see their problems removed or would it be too late and they become history by the time something is done?

By not acting fast to tackle these problems is itself a form of selfish meritocracy. Let’s see whether Chok Tong can do something while he still can and what he said is not just lip service, spoken and forgotten, no longer his problem. He already said that those at the top have the greatest responsibility to curb such abuses. It could be his last generous and righteous act for the people who have supported him and placed their trust in him to make him the PM for so many years.

China should learn from the USA

Xinjiang was hit by terrorists last Tuesday and 21 were killed by China’s security forces after the violent clash. As usual, though the US was under attack by terrorists in Boston, it attacked China for the way it handled the terrorist strike. A US spokesman, Patrick Ventrell, ‘called for a thorough and transparent investigation and expressed concern over discrimination against Uighurs and the practice of Islam.

I think the Americans have a point. The Chinese have very little experience in the handling of the minorities. China should seek the American’s help in how to deal with minorities’ uprisings against the authorities. The Americans were very successful in the uprising of the Red Indians and China should approach the Americans to learn how they decimated the Red Indian Uprising and brought peace to America. The second American success story is that after exterminating almost all the Red Indians, the Americans were very generous and compassionate in setting up reservations to protect the remaining few Red Indians that were still alive.

Actually the Red Indians were a majority but after the killings they became a minority in North America. China’s minorities, the Uighurs, are an historical minority and maybe there is no need to conduct a genocide to terminate them. China can skip this, just set up reservations and march the Uighurs into them to be protected. That would do the job like the Red Indians in the US.

China should send a high level delegation to the USA to seek advice on how this can be done efficiently and gain lasting peace in China. It is a great piece of American recipe that should be shared with countries around the world, in keeping the minorities under control and no more troubles from them forever. Make sure that only a few are left, too few to make any difference anymore.

One more thing, for those caught elsewhere, set up prisons in the model of Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo to lock them up without trial. If any western media or American senator or congressman is to question these prisons, just said they were recommended by the Americans. Ask them to go back and ask their Administration.

FT Myth 2

Hi all, the earlier Poll on this is behaving very weirdly and the numbers could not go up but keeps shrinking after every new high. It is now less than 20 respondents. I have sent a note to Bloggers to investigate and track why the Poll is behaving so badly. Hopefully they can reveal the problem facing this the earlier Poll.

I have created another similar Poll, FT Myth 2. Please vote again and see how this Poll will behave this time. Also, After you voted, please use the 'comment' in this post to indicate A for the first choice and B for the second choice to allow me to do a tally on the fictitious missing numbers. Just an A or B will do.

Thanks for your assistance.

Redbean

Tharman the untarnished, a possible next PM

Tharman has won praises from many quarters for his press interview last week and the balanced comments he made on several key issues that are hot in town. This has prompted Seah Chiang Nee to devote an article on him and sounded the possibility of Tharman becoming the next PM.

This could really be a reality as Tharman is possibly the only key minister that is relatively unscarred by controversies over govt policies. His eloquence and cool cucumber demeanour has stood him well with the people of all races. And who knows, come 2016, if some of the key ministers were booted out during the GE, Tharman could be a natural choice as there would be no one good enough left on the table.

Tharman could be a good choice for many reasons. He comes across as a fair and decent minister, not racist, very Singaporean and a strong believer of meritocracy. So the other races would not have anything to fear that he would fill the cabinets with ministers based on racial affinity. And even if he does so, it would definitely be based on meritocracy, that he could not find enough good ministerial candidates from the other racial groups and he has no choice but to take the difficult choice. And who can fault him then, even if hypothetically, 50% or 70% of his ministers are Indians but chosen based on meritocracy, the pillar of Singapore’s success formula? And being sensitive to the other racial groups, he would not take such a route if he can avoid it, and a more balance cabinet with some moderate changes is the likely outcome. Or he could fill his cabinet with the dream team in politics, by bringing in the best in America and Europe. We could have Obama, George Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Condolezza Rice, George Brown, and whoever in Europe. Just issue them a pink IC and they would be instant Singaporeans and can become ministers. Then there will be new a meaning to the term PMET, M would stand for Ministers and MPs that were replaced by these FTs. Our unique meritocracy policy is simply the best, the most flexible and practical solution to a borderless world and a progressive Singapore.

So far Tharman’s star is shining bright and providence could have its own way to propel Tharman to be the next PM no matter what people may think that the population is still not ready for an Indian PM.

My read is that 2016 is going to be an interesting year and anything can happen, the PAP losing power or losing its two third majority in Parliament, including Tharman becoming the next PM and a cabinet of newly minted citizens as ministers are not far fetched.

Now you are thinking.

Night Festival - A piece of RAR Art

Night Festival series. A painting created by Mother Nature.

Worried for Boon Wan and the HDB

Since Boon Wan’s revelation that HDB was losing money for every flat it sold and the amount was a scandalous billion dollar annually, he has been questioned and ridiculed by many bloggers who simply could not believe in what he said. Some of the attacks were quite personal and very unpleasant. What is more worrisome are the losses incurred by HDB now and later on.

According to Boon Wan, the annual losses over the last few years were about a billion, ie every year but not sure how many years he was referring to, no matter how many flats were built. The building programme was ramped up only last year after he came into office. The number of flats built was very small during the watch of his predecessor that led to the current housing problem and high property prices. So, how much is HDB losing for every flat that it sold? And how much will HDB be losing if the population increases to 6.9m? At 6.9, HDB will need to build another 400,000 units to house the increase of 1.6m people at 4 person per flat.

Let me hazard a guess. Taking a best case scenario to do a rough calculation, the building of 50,000 units under Boon Wan, and using his annual $1b loss, HDB should incur a loss of $20,000 for every unit sold. Tiok boh? If $1b is the loss when only 10,000 units were sold, then the loss per unit should be $100,000.

To build another 400,000 units, the loss could be in the region of $8b to $40b depending on which number one is using. This is a serious amount to lose and a big sum to save if the population is not increased and there is no need to build the 400,000 units of flats.  Would it be prudent and make more economic sense not to increase the population to incur more losses? But this is not all. Boon Wan is trying to bring down the prices of HDB flats from an average of 5.5 years of the buyers annual income to 4 years. This would definitely add to the losses that HDB would have to incur. I am terribly worried as to where the Govt is going to find the money to subsidise these losses. Yes, this is a lot of money and it must come from somewhere and someone would have to pay for it.

Maybe Boon Wan has already worked out the sums and the public need not have to worry. The flats will be cheaper and the losses would be taken care of, somehow.

PS: The original $80b to $400b is wrong and should read $8b to $40b. I have amended the text above.

Leslie Chew, would a gentler touch be better?

As expected, the social media and the opposition would have something to say regarding the arrest of Leslie Chew, the cartoonist. Cherian George has spoken and so has SDP, calling for a gentler touch and no need to use the sledgehammer to smash an ant. Unfortunately their calls could make things worst.

It is not right for Leslie to use the term ‘racist’ on the Govt as it is accusing the Govt of a very serious act. The part on the judiciary is also touchy as the integrity of the judicial system is being questioned. But the reaction by the Govt is seen as being too harsh, over reaction. The question is whether a call to retract the statement would be good enough, and for added measures an apology in his comic front page.

Leslie Chew is just a small guy, ok his cartoons are rubbing people up the wrong side. What I feel is necessary is for Leslie Chew to do some damage control by cleaning up the false or wrong image that he has painted of the judiciary and the Govt, to right a wrong and close the matter. Arresting him just make the matter looks so uncomfortable for a first world country. Other than the converts who would believe in anything, how many would really believe the accusations by Leslie Chew? Many would brush it off as some wild accusations. It is as good as calling an angel a rapist when it is obvious that that is not true.

Going too hard on Leslie Chew may send a message, 杀鸡吓猴, and many messages to the world the kind of society we are living in. What happens to the kinder society and the gentler touch?

Yes, Leslie Chew has printed something unsavoury. How much damage is done by Leslie Chew’s comment to deserve a police arrest? The whole world is watching. After this, the Govt may need to mount a bigger PR exercise for the smear that came with the handling of this case.

More PMETs retrenched

The majority of people losing jobs last year were PMETs, forming 54% of the 11,000 made redundant. The percentages for 2010 and 2011 were 35% and 42% respectively. The other interesting point is that the PMETs that were retrenched were getting younger, in the 20s, 30s and 40s, not necessarily the 50s or older.

The dicey part of this information is that without job security in Sin City, these PMETs that were retrenched are going to have a hard time, really bad time. Not only they have a family to look after, school going children, there is also the 30 year mortgage to pay for. 

Job security in Sin City is a top most concern to all Singaporeans. They cannot afford to go without work for at least 30 years. And for these PMETs to lose their jobs at such early ages this is troubling even if they could find a replacement job fast. Any long break without an income is dire.

Isn’t this frightening? And we have several hundred thousand foreign professionals being employed here while our locals are getting the butts every now and then. This is no joking matter. As a country we cannot afford this kind of situation to get worst. It will only aggravate the already big pool of unemployed PMETs and will cost a heavy strain on the social fabric of our society.

The Govt and MOM cannot be cavalier with this problem as it will hit more and more citizens across all industries. The govt service may be affected too, including those in uniform or in civilian if the direction is not reversed.

Mysterious things happened to the FT myth poll

I am certain that the number of respondents to the poll was more than 90 last night. I dunno why the number has dropped to 22 now. Google system must be suspect, unsteady, unreliable.

Good news, 71 F35s on the way

According to My Paper today, an US Air Force Lieutenant General Christopher Bogdan has said Singapore is close to a deal to buy 71 pieces of the yet to be operational, yet to be combat tested leading edge multi role futuristic combat aircraft from the USA. It will cost only $11b or about $155 mil a piece. Now that is cheap. The US must have slashed the price to make it so attractive that we are going to get more than the earlier rumours. Or maybe we have gone there and drove a good bargain, for cash, 50% discount, take it of leave it.

The best part of this deal is that the aircraft is still on a developmental stage and would definitely be the most modern and fresh out of the oven aircraft that any country can hope to buy from the Americans. Often the Americans would sell only aircraft that have been in service for 20 or 30 years so that the buyer would not get the state of the art technology and aircraft. Singapore must be in a very enviable position to seal this deal.

With 71 of the finest and most advanced aircraft available in the future, no delivery date mentioned yet, may 10 or 20 years, we have positioned ourselves as the mightiest air force in Asia. North Korea and even China would not be a problem if they dare to launch an air attack on us.

Singaporeans can now sleep in peace. Our sky is safe. Good buy.

Would Singaporeans behave as one like the Bostonians

Hsien Loong wrote in his facebook, “If ever Singapore encounters an incident like this, may we have the courage and the humanity to respond with the same grace and unity as the Bostonians.”

This is a big if. In America, other that then the rich elite feasting on the country’s wealth, the rest of the Americans are fairly equal as one people despite the myriads of nationals that made up the Americans. The stratification of the Americans is not institutionalised like what we have here. I am not just talking about the CMIO division, and I am also not talking about the citizens versus foreigners when the latter is now nearly 50% of the population. In any crisis, 50% of the population, or the foreigners, can be ruled out, they will say not their business, and scoot.

What about the Singaporeans? I think this is increasingly becoming a big issue with the Singaporeans being pigeoned hole into so many categories. Would the Singaporeans ask themselves, how much should I contribute in a crisis? I am the low income earner and expected to take public transport, so how much should I contribute compare to those who can afford expensive cars? I am the average Singaporean and this is how much I should contribute, with or without subsidies. Then the higher income earners may ask how much should they discount their contributions when they are being deprived of so many things, like housing, and made to pay more for more expensive hospital wards and higher tuition fees with no subsidies for their children. And what about the super rich that have so many good things in their way, would they say, sure we are the biggest beneficiary of the system and we will contribute the most?

The Govt has been dividing and subdividing the Singaporeans into so many categories with all kinds of subsidies and penalties, in monetary terms. Would the Singaporeans be just as calculative as the Govt and say, all the calls and pledges to defend and die for country are just nice sounding aspirations. Now if there is a real crisis, what and how the Govt pigeon holed and treated me will be how I repay and contribute to the country?

Those who are given lesser or no subsidies may say, let those with more subsidies be the first line of defence. And those who are not even allowed to buy public flats may say, those who are entitled go first?

Did I hear inclusiveness, inclusive society? Or did I hear a country and people divided along the lines of incomes, entitlements and subsidies? Compare this with the Bostonians who are not stratified into so many layers and classes, can our people react and unite as one in times of crisis, standing together as one people? Or would they be bickering, that fellow earns more, that one earns less and that one gets more subsidies? Or would they be competing with each other to be at the back line? Where are those who are angry that those who earn a few dollars more should not be allowed to compete with those who earn less in public housing and screaming unfair advantage?

In times like this, many would want to say all is equal and all contributes the same. Would it be too late to say so? Would someone earning millions contribute like someone earning a few hundred dollars? Is it all about how much one was given or what one can afford? Those who have to sell homes to finance children to study overseas, what would they say? Those with low or no priority in public housing, what would they think? Are we one people or many people in a country separated by the rich poor divide or entitlement divide?

Making May Day at Hong Lim a non political event

Nizam Ismail mentioned that his participation as a speaker at Hong Lim somehow has become an issue. I think this is not good for the May Day Rally at Hong Lim which I would like to see it as a people’s event, a non partisan event, a political party neutral event. And after reading Gilbert Goh’s list of speakers, it dawns on me that speakers from one big party are not represented. This is no good.

I would recommend Gilbert to make a serious effort to invite speakers from the ruling party to Hong Lim. That would help to neutralize the image that it is anti Govt or anti PAP. This is a people’s movement and every citizen from every political party should view this as a national event and participate in it freely like the National Day Parade where all political parties are invited, supporters of all parties will come forward as one people one nation.

There is still time for Gilbert to do the necessary to make all political parties happy. How about trying out Tan Cheng Bock or Inderjit Singh? Those ministerial grade would be a bit difficult to invite I think as they will be busy with their May Day commitments.

How Gilbert, you can do it. Quickly send out the invitations and make a few personal phone calls. It will be good for all politicians to be there as they will be seen as championing the cause of the people, speaking for the interests of the people, as leaders of the people. Not being there could be seen in a different light.

Isn’t this May Day Rally what democracy is all about? It is the people having a say of their future and the future of the country. Can this be wrong?

Self imposed silence

Today I am on a self imposed silent mode, appalled by the things that are happening right before my eyes. I will leave you with a poll on the right and this saying to ponder about.

人有人道， 鬼有鬼道，人鬼不同道

Nizam Ismail ‘forced’ to resign from AMP?

There is an article in Breakfast Network today on the circumstances leading to Nizam Ismail’s resignation from AMP. This news is also carried by the main media. Nizam is a lawyer and had spoken at the first protest rally at Hong Lim and is scheduled to speak again on May Day in a sequel to the first rally.

It was reported that ‘AMP had informed him over the weekend that two ministers had “expressed concern” about some critical views he had put forth online and his participation in two events….He said he was presented with two options. One, if he did not “tone down” his activities, the Govt would withdraw funding from AMP. Two, dissociate himself from AMP if he wanted to continue with civil society activities.

So Nizam has resigned as a Director of AMP. Looks like Nizam will probably launch his political career after this episode as he is obviously a concerned Singaporean who is passionate about the affairs of the state and people. Now, which political party will he join? Or would he be invited for tea and join the ruling party? He is definitely a good catch for any party given that he is a rare minority intellect. Good for Nizam to take up politics as this looks like a natural thing to do.

All the best Nizam.

Demon-cratic Singapore cartoon strip author Leslie Chew arrested

The author of this political comic strip, Leslie Chew, 37, was arrested by the Police last Friday and is out on a $10,000 bail. His offending acts were two cartoons, one that undermined the judiciary and another raising racial tension by stating that the Malay population was suppressed by a racist Govt. Both are seditious in nature and come under the Sedition Act.

Leslie Chew claimed in defense that his comics were fictional in nature and now it is up to the prosecutor and the court to decide his fate. Race and religion are very sensitive in this island and playing them up with the consequence of raising inter racial and religious tensions are serious in nature and the Govt is particularly sensitive to them.

Veritas has also been very vocal in his racial comments, including some posts in this blog. I would like to suggest to Veritas to be more circumspect in his postings and not to stray too near to the Sedition Act. We should comment fairly and objectively without getting too racist in our posts and avoid inciting hatred among the races and religious believers.

Everyone should take this seriously and take note that freedom of expression comes with responsibility too. And the more freedom we enjoyed, the greater is our responsibility and the more careful we should be with what we write and post.

I wish Leslie Chew well in this brush with the law.

Cheers.

The Japanese reviving their militant past

The Japanese parliamentarians trooped into Yasukuni to pay respect to war criminals that invaded, raped, looted and murdered the Asian countries during WW2. Abe skipped the visit but donated a pine tree to the temple. This is the first major affront to the invaded and colonized countries during Japan’s Imperial conquest of East and South East Asia.

China was furious and so was South Korea. The rest of South East Asia the reaction was muted. They could not feel the importance of the visit nor the impact and pain of the Japanese Occupation. Prime reason, all these countries were not countries then. They were all colonies of European Empires and Japan was just another empire. Only the deep cultural roots and nationalism of China and Korea could their people felt the grief and anger. Even Taiwan too could not feel much as many Taiwanese were recruited to fight for the Japanese Imperial Army.

The Japanese banquet at Yasukuni was followed by a flotilla of 10 ships and more than 80 Japanese attempting to land at Diaoyu Islands. China sent in 8 Surveillance ships to intercept them and prevent a landing. The Japanese sent in 13 Coastguard patrol craft to intercept the Chinese ships. And Abe threatened to use force if any Chinese should land at the islands. He did not threaten his Japanese for wanting to land in the islands nor try to stop them from landing.

The stage is set with an embolden Japan thinking that it can whip the Chinese and starting to talk down to the Chinese like they did in the days of Imperial Japan. Japan still thinks it is a more powerful country than China and would use the stick like it used to do. Of course the Americans are behind them.

Can China stand still and allow the Japanese to slap its face, left and right, and do nothing? For all its national pride and historical humiliation by Japan, China would have to stand up to the Japanese provocation with or without the Americans backing the Japs. China would have to repel the Japanese advances. It could also be a time for exacting revenge on the defeat by Japan in 1894. It could be a conventional warfare, a limited warfare involving air and sea, provided the Americans did not come in. If the Americans dare to meddle and raise the stake, a nuclear holocaust is the next offering.

The game of chicken is about who dares and who blinks. But this chicken game involves more than just being seen as who is more gungho. There are many national issues at stake and there is the risk of a nuclear war that would change the future of human civilization. Would the Americans think it is acceptable to go on to embolden the Japanese and engage in this war? This is not playing with fire and starting small fires. When lighted, it is beyond anyone’s control.

HDB income ceiling should/should not be removed

This has become another pointless controversy with Singaporeans splitted. Some have valid and logical reasons to take their stands. Some are making a stand for flawed or superficial logics.

As all citizens should be treated on an equal basis regardless of wealth, why should some be deprived of a basic right to buy a roof over their heads? A roof is a necessity and every Singaporeans need a place to stay. And every male Singaporean is expected to serve NS to defend his stake in this country. By depriving him from buying a home to stay, there is nothing for him to defend and to do NS.

Maybe the Govt should retain the income ceiling and any Singaporean that is not allowed to buy a public flat, ie no stake in the country, need not have to serve NS as he has nothing to fight and defend for. And for those who have stupidly completed their NS and found themselves being suckered, at least the Govt should exempt them from reservist liabilities. I think this is only fair. Why should they be made to defend a country when the country barred them from buying a public flat to live in?

Why should new citizens be allowed to buy public flats without even having to serve NS and citizens who have served NS cannot buy public flats? And many daft Singaporeans are still singing the stupid tune that the richer Singaporeans will be competing with the lesser well off Singaporeans for flats when it is plainly the fault of the Govt for not building enough and thus causing this mismatch in supply and demand. Instead of blaming the Govt, they are blaming other Singaporeans. How silly!

Would the Govt own up and tell the daft Singaporeans that it was the Govt’s fault for not building enough and not to blame other Singaporeans for it? This is the same thing as demand for C class wards in hospital when the demand is high but C class wards are under provided.

Daft Sinkies, please think clearly and address the source of the problem and stop bitching and blaming other Singaporeans. Singaporeans are divided to fight among themselves without knowing why. How pathetic. And no one, not the Govt or the media take it upon themselves to explain and educate the people on this fallacy. Daft Sinkies cannot see further than their noses or think further than 1 plus 1.

The precarious nature of investing in Malaysia

When Mahathir scuttled the CLOB shares trading in SGX, billions of Singaporean dollars went up in smokes. Hundreds of thousands of Singaporeans simply got burnt with their investment in CLOB shares turning into waste papers. That was how precarious and unpredictable the changes in policies dished out by the Malaysian leaders.

With Mahathir out of the picture, things get a bit better, a bit of normalcy returns. Then with Najib doing a Deng Xiaoping by establishing better relations with Singapore and in a way opening up Malaysia for investment, things get to look more rosy with Singaporeans becoming the biggest investor in Iskandar Economic Zone. Billions are likely to be invested in this project alone and also in other parts of Malaysia. Everything is looking fine, till yesterday.

The Malaysian Generation is a national affair but with cross border implications. Anwar sent an awakening call to foreign investors yesterday by saying that though all agreements will be honoured should his party won the election, things will not be the same. There will be changes to favour Malaysians. Now, what is Anwar saying? What would he do or change to the investment climate in Iskandar and how would it affect the Singaporean investors? The latter are now sitting back and watch and wondering what would happen to their investment if the changes turn out to be unfavourable. Would it be another CLOB of a different kind?

Just when one thinks everything is fine, dark cloud is forming. Investing in Malaysia is precarious and subject to the changes in political fortunes.