No need more regulations for cyberspace

Why is there such an obsession to want to regulate the internet? Who wants to regulate the internet and for whose interests? I don't see bloggers being too keen to want people to regulate their activities. In communist countries, dictatorships, authoritarian states, regulations and laws are the tools to keep the people in check and the rulers in power. Laws and regulations are aplenty, all for the sake of the rulers and not for the people. That is the reason why they are so obsessed with more rules and regulations. In our case, thank god, we have elected honourable people with high principles, morals and selflessness as our rulers. So the danger for abuse of rules and laws is not there. Our rulers are righteous people and will not interpret the laws to their benefit or to the disadvantage of the people. For such reasons, we are an exception. Actually I would support more rules and regulations as they will be made for the good of the people. Let's talk about govt and rulers in general, excluding our govt as we are different from the rest of the world. It is very common and easy for rogues to be elected as rulers or assumed power. Some will wear the mask of absolute righteousness. But when in power, the only thing they care is to keep themselves in power forever. And they will want to keep the people in control with more rules and regulations. All done for their own interests. Even without more regulations and laws, many tricks are available to them to intimidate the people. Calling up people to harass them, invite them to the police station for tea. Or worst, if all things failed, they can use the ISA and arrest innocent people on fictitious charges. If the people remains quiet, those arrested will be arrested for good. If the people make noise, they may release them and claim that the arrest was for the safety of the person. Do people really want to have more rules and laws governing internet? I feel that common law, the law of human decency, the law of respecting other people etc should be adequate. There are enough laws to regulate human behaviour and crimes. No need to have more. What for, for who?

Why no Tamil signages at the airport?

Red card was shown and a speaker was not allowed to talk on the above topic at Hong Lim Park. This is a sensitive issue on race. A K.Sabesan wrote to the ST and said, 'I wish to express my strong displeasure over the decision of the police to cancel a planned talk at the Speaker's Corner over the absence of Tamil signages at the airport and other tourist attractions...I strongly supported the initiative not out of hatred towards other races, but felt that the issue had to be addressed.' I have full sympathy with such feelings. We have so many Tamils and Bangladeshis here who don't read English or Chinese. We also have so many Thais, Myanmese, Filipinos and Indonesians and people from other countries. And we also have tourists from around the world coming here, including Arabs, Russians, East Europeans, Japanese, Mongolians, Vietnamese etc etc. As a global city welcoming the world to our home, we must show our hospitality towards our guests and our guest workers. We need to make our facilities friendly to all of them. And this is especially so to the valuable foreign workers and foreign talents sacrificing to build our countries and provide employments to Singaporeans. We should have signages for all the languages of the world in our airports and tourist spots. That is not only natural justice, we can also claim another first to do so. Soon big cities like New York, London and Paris will follow our example as truly international cities and put up language signages in their airports. If we are not going to do so, then we should do the next niciest thing, to cut down on the number of foreign workers and foreigners in our country. Then no one can be angry with us or complain that we are being unfair to them. We can't really blame them when there are so many of them here. We must treat them fairly, at least let them know how to go from A to B, in their own languages. Where on earth can you find foreigners demanding rights to have their languages in signages in our airports and tourist spots? Only in Sillypore!

Local fund managers grotesquely underpaid

Below is an article showing how well off American and European fund managers are being paid in year 2007 alone. Top on the list is John Paulson at US$3.7bn, second was George Soros at US$2.9bn and third was James Simon at US$2.8bn. We should quickly raise the pay for our local fund managers before they all ran to America and Europe. American hedge fund billionaire John Paulson 'American hedge fund billionaire John Paulson was his industry's biggest earner in 2007 thanks to a bet against sub-prime mortgages that netted him $3.7bn (£1.9bn) in personal profit. As the world's biggest banks reeled in the face of the credit crunch last year, the top five hedge fund earners took home at least $1.5bn apiece after their funds gambled the right way in exceptionally volatile markets. Hedgie Paulson's made it, now he must spend it. A survey by US hedge fund magazine Alpha, published yesterday, said the five - Mr Paulson, George Soros, James Simons of Renaissance Technologies, Philip Falcone of Harbinger Capital and Kenneth Griffin of Citadel - all individually earned more than the $1.2bn that JPMorgan will spend to buy Bear Stearns, the most high profile victim of the crunch. Mr Paulson, himself a former managing director at Bear Stearns, stole the crown after setting up the $150m Paulson Credit Opportunities Fund in June 2006 to short sub-prime mortgage-backed assets. Where other investors bet against the entire sub-prime index, Mr Paulson's team drilled down to the individual CDOs, delivering net returns of 590pc for investors in the fund by the end of the year. Number two on the list - 77-year-old Mr Soros, who called the dotcom bust - also owes his $2.9bn payday to his bets against sub-prime, as does ex-Barclays Capital man and Harbinger founder Mr Falcone, who pocketed $1.7bn. Hedge fund traders needed to earn at least $210m to reach the top 50, a feat achieved by eight London-based traders. Top of the UK's hedge fund performers, at number 13 with $450m, was the head of Atticus Capital's fund, David Slager. Others include GLG Partners' co-founders Noam Gottesman and Pierre Lagrange, who made $350m apiece, while star trader Greg Coffey made $300m. This was on top of the hundreds of millions of dollars the trio made when they listed GLG on the New York Stock Exchange last year. But GLG has entered more treacherous waters. News emerged yesterday that Mr Coffey - a specialist in emerging markets - unexpectedly handed in his resignation at GLG earlier this week, sending the fund's shares plunging by 12.5pc to $8.75. The GLG partner rescinded his resignation on Tuesday, but is locked in talks with Mr Gottesman and Mr Lagrange about his future, with no guarantee he will stay on.' I would like to give credit to the source of this article. Unfortunately the source was not disclosed.

A tale from NTU

I did something naughty last week by Terrence Lee What a week it has been. I'd expect my four years in university to be extremely peaceful, free from trouble and fuss. My idea of university life used to be that of dating, studying, and having fun generally. How things have changed in the space of seven days. Things are certainly getting interesting, right here at NTU. In one night, at the click of a mouse, I became an activist, and I did not even realise it then. So, what is activism, you wonder? It is standing up for certain beliefs, and fighting to get it recognised by the authorities and the wider public.... So, what exactly happened? Here's a brief: 1) Chee Soon Juan came down to NTU to gave out flyers and talk to students. They were generally apathetic, but student reporters were on hand to report the event. 2) However, the campus administration did the unthinkable -- they censored all coverage of Dr Chee's visit, wanting to "protect students." 3) Many of us at the Nanyang Chronicle, the school's campus newspaper, were infuriated. It showed two things: that the school has no regard for the opinions of students and that the school treats us like children, thinking that we will be easily influenced by whatever we read. That was when a thought came to me: Get it out! Get it out! Singaporeans need to hear about this!.... Above is an extract of a post by Terrence Lee and crossed posted in the TOC. It is a lamentation by a university student on how NTU, an institution of higher learning, dealt with the visit of Chee Soon Juan to the university. According to Terrence Lee, the students were treated like children and the university was trying to protect them. Where is papa and mama? If university undergraduates are so naive, so fragile, so innocent, that they need to be protected by the university from a politician, how could our children be exposed to the vagaries of life and to make informed opinions of the world? It looks like the undergrads are a cohort of kindergarten children. What happens to the old belief that the university is a fertile ground to nurture the young minds, to liberate them from ignorance, to acquire an inquiring mind, to deliberate and expound and exchange ideas, of youthful idealism? Looks like it is better to feed them with Vitamin C daily to protect them from the common flu. These are poor and helpless students and can be easily exploited and manipulated as they are quite mindless. I just make up my mind to send my children overseas to get a real education.

Wrong perception on power station sale

Jenny Teo, Director, Energy Market Authority, wrote a letter to Today to explain the rationale for the sale of power stations to private companies. The story that the govt was selling the stations for 'good profit' and to avoid 'having to explain to the public high (electricity) tariffs' were wrong. These were not the reasons why the power stations were divested. It was all a govt's strategy to open up the market for more competition, restructure the industry, which ultimately will benefit the consumers. And this is already bearing fruits. Otherwise the consumers will now be paying much higher tariffs when oil prices rose. The efficiency and productivity gains were passed on to the consumers. With the opening up, with participation of more players, with liberalisation, 'there will be more scope for innovation, better service and competitive pricing' which means consumers will benefit more. The main logic is still privatisation. Organisations that are not privatised will be inefficient and unproductive. This logic is quickly loosing its meaning and becoming stale. The civil servants of today are no longer the dumb and dull civil servants of yesteryears. They are the best of the crop, the best talents of the country. And they have all the resources to improve and better the system. They can do all their studies, go on study trips, all information and technology are open secret and available to them. The civil servants can do much better, given their talents, to run more efficient and productive organisations. There is no need to privatise, to commercialise, to be efficient. In the present context, a govt monopoly is an advantage and can be very productive given the scale of operations. Unless our civil servants are not as talented as they are make out to be. Then that will be a different story. And we should actually sack all of them. Why pay them market salary if they are unable to compete with the best in the market?