drums, gongs and kompangs for Remy

Perhaps, perhaps, if he was a foreign talent, he might deserve something better, more attention, more accolades, more fundings and more praising. Isn't home grown talents not worthy to be groomed? Or their achievements not to be trumpeted? Someone should ask him to sleep in the void deck with his bowling balls for one week and donate $500k for his effort. That would surely raise his presence and the interest in Remy. Come on sports reporters, do something good for our home grown heroes. Make up some interesting stories like what they did for Tiger Woods. Analyse and compare his achievements with other great bowlers, see what kind of records he has broken. The first Singaporean to win how many world titles, how many titles he has won so far? How many perfect games etc. Create a website for him. Popularise bowling through his achievements. Make every child wants to be a Remy ong like every Brazilian wanting to be Pele. Make bowling a national craze. Forget about football or sprinting, sports that we are physically disadvantage. Keep the Singapore League for commercial reasons to keep the footballers employed. Pay them and not foreigners. We will never be there in the world cup. Just treat it as a sweet dream. Be real. Better to promote things like bowling, yacthing, billiards, ok, badminton, table tennis etc where we really have a chance to be world champions. Oh, golf is possible too.

hedge funds, saviour or menace?

'...hedge funds were a vital source of liquidity - saviours when markets dry up.' Robert Rubin 'Asian policymakers saw them as predators causing undue volatility and overwhelming central banks. Said William Pesek. Now who is saying the true picture. Both said some truth but one is truer than the other. Just look at the main reason for the existence of hedge funds. Hedge funds exist solely for profits. Never forget this. Their presence in any market to provide liquidity is incidental and to their benefits. They are in a market to soak up the liquidity and will disappear as quickly as they appear when the market dries up. And they caused upheavals in the wake of their entry and departure. Governments must get it straight. The hedge funds are not there to bring in money. In a market when there are lots of foreign funds available, it may be acceptable for the hedge funds to come in and generate activities and liquidity. For the money they are going to scoop up could be from foreign funds. But when the money in the market belongs to the people, the citizens, one better thinks a little whether hedge funds should be welcomed to take all the people's money away. Sometimes it is better to have lesser activities and gradual growth and retaining the money in the market then to allow hedge funds to come in and off load everything away. And normally such activities will incur a cost to the hedge funds for playing in the market and these could provide additional jobs and revenue. What if the bulk of the traders were international? What if commissions are negligible or nothing to talk about? In such a situation the hedge funds could operate at practically no cost, generate few jobs, but through their expertises and collusion, could wipe out a whole market. Hedge funds that are uncontrolled and allowed to play by the law of the jungle are a menace to the financial markets and can break a country.

hedge funds, saviour or menace?

'...hedge funds were a vital source of liquidity - saviours when markets dry up.' Robert Rubin 'Asian policymakers saw them as predators causing undue volatility and overwhelming central banks. Said William Pesek. Now who is saying the true picture. Both said some truth but one is truer than the other. Just look at the main reason for the existence of hedge funds. Hedge funds exist solely for profits. Never forget this. Their presence in any market to provide liquidity is incidental and to their benefits. They are in a market to soak up the liquidity and will disappear as quickly as they appear when the market dries up. And they caused upheavals in the wake of their entry and departure. Governments must get it straight. The hedge funds are not there to bring in money. In a market when there are lots of foreign funds available, it may be acceptable for the hedge funds to come in and generate activities and liquidity. For the money they are going to scoop up could be from foreign funds. But when the money in the market belongs to the people, the citizens, one better thinks a little whether hedge funds should be welcomed to take all the people's money away. Sometimes it is better to have lesser activities and gradual growth and retaining the money in the market then to allow hedge funds to come in and off load everything away. And normally such activities will incur a cost to the hedge funds for playing in the market and these could provide additional jobs and revenue. What if the bulk of the traders were international? What if commissions are negligible or nothing to talk about? In such a situation the hedge funds could operate at practically no cost, generate few jobs, but through their expertises and collusion, could wipe out a whole market. Hedge funds that are uncontrolled and allowed to play by the law of the jungle are a menace to the financial markets and can break a country.

the paradox of opposition and power

'The only constant is that every state eventually ends up an oligarchy — to varying degrees of course. What a state does is that it "steals" the country from the people. And therefore when the people vote, the people get the government they deserve. And the government engineers the extent of the state — at some point beyond the control of the people — unless they want to take EXTREME measures like revolution, coups, civil war or assassinations. All of these: VERY BAD SCENE. (but entertaining nonetheless Laughing.' Matilah Singapura I fully agree with your above quote. This is the natural way for things to be. All things will find its own way to self destruct and for a new beginning. It goes in cycles. The state is initially intended for the good of the people. But once man got into power, power got into his head and it is always self that comes first. Then the slide begins for his own destruction. The people must always stand up to voice their disagreements and prevent the slide. Now this is funny. You need opposing voices to save the corrupted from getting more corrupt to save themselves and the system. For if the people just do nothing, the slide will be faster and the self destruction will come sooner. This strange law of nature works wonders. And if you look at the IMF-World Bank and their symbiotic relationship with the civil organisations who disagree with them, how one party needs the other to prolong the game, it is another level of enlightenment. If you have read my post on why the opposition always think that those in power needs to be brought down and the assumption by the powers that all oppositions are bad and incompetent, you will know that the assumptions of both sides could be just as wrong. Marx is right when he came out with the formula, thesis, anti thesis and synthesis. Every thesis will need an anti thesis to make way for another synthesis. This is the law of nature, the law of life. And it is enshrined in the story of the Animal Farm.

myth 64

'Who says we are intolerant of opposing views?' I have posted what Lee Wei Ling said about helping the poor since we are such a rich country. And I quote her here again. 'As a First World country where millions of dollars are being poured into making us a cultured and vibrant society, could a few million dollars be spared to build nursing homes for disabled patients whose parents are getting too old to look after them any longer.' Dr Lee Wei Ling I think she is asking for too much. There is no such things as a free lunch. Neither is the govt responsible to look after the people's welfare. Everyone must be responsible for their own health and problems. Wei Ling's view is definitely not the same as the govt. Boon Wan is having great plans to build retirement villages. These will not be for free. But disagreeing with the govt's position is acceptable. It is not always a case of right or wrong when people disagree. Someone insists that durian is the best fruit in the world. Some will strongly disgree and think it is the most smelly fruit. Then again, for the safety of the IMF-World Bank delegates, we wanted to ban 27 activists. But the IMF-World Bank disagreed and protested that the 27 should be let in. And we listen and accepted their opposing voice. We allowed 22 to come in. We are willing to listen to people who disagree with us and if they are reasonable, change our position. Who is complaining that we are intolerant of opposing voices?