lky wants singaporeans to take more risk

who would risk losing $100k to make a commission of $120 without collateral? who would take an order for $500k without collateral? who would take such risk based on trust, personal assessment and calculated risk? the remisiers are the most misunderstood and abused professionals in the finance industry. during the 1990s bull run, many people begrudged the remisiers for making huge commissions without a clear understanding of what were actually involved. people only saw one side of the coin, the enviable side. no one knew that for every $1 a remisier made, he stands to lose $100. a remisier who made $100k in commission stands to lose $10 mil in losses when the market turns against his clients. after the market crashed, many remisiers ended with huge bad debts and had to pay for them when their clients ran away. many went bankrupt or were unable to continue with their business. the job of remisiers is not merely offering professional advices to their clients. the job of remisiers is not simply keying an order and collect commission like a toll collector or key punch operator. a remisier is a risk taker. he stood as guarantor for his clients and will have to make good the losses if clients defaulted. a more important role that many people could not understand is that of a multiplier. our market is too small and did not have the critical mass of investors to provide a decent trading volume. without the remisiers, the banks or broking houses will not extend the kind of limits a remisier will extend to the clients without collaterals. the remisiers as the middle men are in a better position to assess the risk profiles of their clients. this requires intimate contact with the clients and knowing the clients. many clients were relatives, friends or friends of friends. the banks will not be able to do this effectively without a large pool of credit officers. even if the banks are willing to employ them, the reliability of these officers will always be questionable. it is not their money. remisiers are risking their own money. the benefit of remisiers in this role is to multiply the trading volumes by 10 to 100 times which otherwise will not be achieveable. we will not be able to have a healthy and active stockmarket without the remisiers. remove the remisiers and our market will collapse. we can kiss goodbye to our stockmarket or our dream of being a financial centre to rival hongkong. a remisier is a risk taker, a big risk taker that is most misunderstood. we are not like america or some big countries. we are very small but with a huge ambition and a huge appetite to be a regional financial centre. the remisiers play a very unique role to complement our disadvantage in size.

singapore-drug trafficker-australia relations

it is unbelieveable that a drug trafficker could be the wedge that threatens to undermine the special relationship between singapore and australia. even howard admitted that they is a ground swell on the hanging of the australian drug trafficker. singapore is the strongest ally of australia and the link for australia to asean and the region. and australia is always very well regarded here and also a choice country for singaporeans for investment, education and migration and many other things. would such a strong relationship not withstand the hanging of a criminal? would the australian call hsien loong recalcitrant? many unpleasant words have been uttered by the australian public and some interested parties. the australian govt is also under some pressure to play to the gallery or they too would have to do some face saving for stubbornly insisting to appeal in this case. hopefully the australian leadership is not as frivolous as the public and have some sense to look at the issue from a different perspective. what about the other side of the view? are there australians who think that the drug trafficker deserved to be hanged? obviously there are except that for the moment the media is playing up the feelings of antagonism and anti singapore sentiment. responsible press or free press? eventually it will be another flash in the pan and everything will return to normal. they don't have many friends in the region and don't thing they would want to jeopardise their relations with a close ally and a staunch supporter of australia. otherwise they will look more silly than the drug trafficker.

chee soon juan called for global protest

chee soon juan is calling howard to lead an international protest on the hanging of an australian drug trafficker. what good does this internationalising of the hanging of a criminal going to do to chee soon juan's political career? is he courting recognition to prepare him for the next general election? or is he fighting a personal battle with the pap? though many singaporeans may be compassionate to the plight of this drug trafficker, many also understand the harm he is causing, and our law on drug trafficking. the death penalty for drug traffickers is as institutionalised as national service for our men. we know the law and we know that it is something we should stay clear and far away from it. but do we want our laws to keep drugs away from our shores be undermined by all the drug traffickers and their supporters? would singaporeans view chee's position as a plus for his righteousness and compassion? or will singaporeans look at him as an unthinking opportunist, recklessly taking on any issue that crops up? will he gain more credibility from this or do himself and his party more harm? the implications of going soft on drug traffickers is a subtle way of saying it is ok. not that singaporeans are murderers and cherish hanging another man. maybe the govt should put up a huge banner at all the immigration points begging all drug traffickers to stay away from singapore. and maybe the govt should put up a worldwide advertisement to beg the whole world and their govt to tell their people not to bring drugs here. it is very painful and makes us look so merciless and barbaric to take people's life. please help us not to do it. singapore must go down on its knees and say 'please please don't come here.'

no election rally

it started as a joke. that there will be no election rally in the next general election. too risky to have a few thousand people in the open in view of the threats of terrorism. this is no joking matter. just think about it a little. it is so easy to blow up a few bodies in such a crowd. our security people must be having a big headache as to how to manage all the election rallies. the resources are limited and the terrorists are so unpredictable. would there go ahead to ban election rallies? doing so will instantly bring about all the expected criticisms. not doing it, they will put their necks on the chopping blocks should the ugly thing happens. only one incident is all that is needed to bring hell to everyone. the close proximity of so many people together and in an election rally! who is going to shoulder such a heavy responsibility? will we have election rally then?

how to become a laffing stock

the times higher education supplement(thes) has ranked nus and ntu at 22 and 48 positions. this places nus ahead of many reputable universities in the usa. and if we work on it, it is so easy for nus to be the top university in the world. singaporeans really excelled in the area of examination. we are exam smart. just let a singaporean go through the exam for a few times and we know exactly how to score in every area. the criteria set by thes is no different. we will learn quickly and overcome them, and score As in every section. another few years and we will be there, the top university in the whole world. but being at the top comes with a price. financially this is chicken feed. we have the dole. we can afford it. if not enough we can raise fund. if necessary we can raise tuition fees. as simple as that. but the financial cost is nothing. today nus is 22. even at 22, many people are already sneering at nus. how could nus be better than such and such a university in the states. these universities are well established and with records of producing brilliant and successful graduates. what is the track record of nus? just imagine when we become number 1. we out ranked all the top ivy league universities in the usa. we are on top of harvard, mit, carnegie mellon, princeton, stanford, yale, ucla...etc etc we may become number 1 on paper. but nobody is going to take us seriously. we may work very hard to be tops in the thes ranking. but we will only work ourself to become a laughing stock. a really good university is not just because of its ranking by some superficial survey. there are more to it than having how many foreign students, how many papers published, how good are the facilities and how many reputable professors. it is a history of many things in combination. and most important thing is the x factor. people just know and recognise it as the best. do we want to work so hard to be number 1?