The ridiculous nature of cyberspace

It is so ridiculous that cyberspace has now been use to its best to ridicule officialdom. Any dignitary, thoroughbred, infallible or otherwise supreme talent that once was sharing sermons of wisdom is now the convenient target of ridicules if he/she reveals his/her true self too often. The weapon of ridicule is perhaps the most power weapon available at this point in time to netizens. I think netizens know that there is nothing that they can do to engage in a real discussion with officialdom. They know that they will be ignored for good reasons. So, at best, they will make a silly statement looks even more silly than it really was. But would it matter? I think no. Officialdom lives in another world and there is no engagement. The hardcore netizens swear that they will not read the old media or main stream media. Likewise officialdom will not waste time in cyberspace to read the ridiculous postings. Officialdom will simply say what they want to say in the old media and that's it. It is official. When shall the Twains meet? Or will ever the Twains shall meet? Actually I got this feeling that they met but pretended not to meet. And cyberspace will remain as ridiculous as it can get while the old media will remain as official as it can get.

Investing $billions or $millions

The key questions in everyone's mind today is risk in investment. How much risk to take and capital protection. Would the investment lead to a total wipe out of the capital put in. In the minibond case, many were looking at long term bond or fixed deposit equivalent that have very little risk of losing their capital. They are looking for a little better than the pathetic interest rates for fixed deposits with minimal risk or no risk at all. Then in the case of Madoff's ponzi scheme, many of the investors went in for a consistent and respectable return for their money on the track records of Madoff's company and Madoff's reputation. A lot of assumptions were taken for granted eg SEC regulations, audit checks were expected to be in order and no fraud was expected. There were risks but none of the investors would have considered them or have sleepless night over them. They could lose some money if the investment climate changed but neither would they ever thought of losing it all. Then again investing in an institution like Madoff's and in a normal situation would be like walking into a bank to buy unit trust, a long term investment that could not go too much wrong. When a financial crisis is brewing, when a major financial institution is in financial trouble, or any big corporations in need of fund to survive, the need for due diligence is much heightened. Putting money into a crisis organisation is like putting in good money after bad money. How bad is the situation and how high is the risk must be the major considerations before committing millions or billions into it. And when millions and billions are concerned, capital protection must be vital. This is not placing bets in a casino where one is prepared to lose the whole bet. This is investment, investing huge sums of money with calculated risks and knowing how much to lose. Going into such high risk investments in a risky situation is different from investing in a Madoff fund or even a minibond equivalent. Here the risk is very high and very real, an organisation about to turn turtle. People cannot go into such critical investments using huge sums of money without protecting their investments and risk losing everything. We have pumped billions of public money into distressed banks and financial institutions recently. Were the risks carefully evaluated and the capital protected by some conditions or agreements without having to lose all or a major part of it? Or were the people deciding on these investments prepared to lose everything without protecting the capital? We are losing a lot of money, public money, and some bets could end up losing everything. High risk high return is as good as gambling in the casino. Investing is not about losing but managing loss and maximising returns. If losing everything is not a factor in the decision making, then it is a highly dangerous adventure. Maybe the risk of losing is computed from the total sum of funds under management. If one is managing $100 billion, taking a calculated risk to lose $10 billion in a single investment is risking 10% of the whole and acceptable. This may be what some fund managers would think. But think again. If the funds are public money, and the 10% is in the billions, it is not a peanut monopoly game. It is risking real money, substantial amount of money. I believe all the supertalents who are paid supertalent salaries must have weighed all these factors carefully before they made the decisions. They are paid good money and are expected to do their due diligence.

Redbean suspended from TOC!!!

I just try to visit TOC and this message greeted me. This account has been suspended. My goodness! What have I done to be suspended from TOC? I hope this is a technical error. My mind is running wild with all kinds of possibilities. TOC may want to explain to me quickly.

Trying times, trying A Team

The last one and the half years are trying times and have put the A Team to its test. Did they come out with flying colours? From the comments and discussions and criticisms in cyberspace, they don't seem to have done well. In contrast, the old media would probably run accolades across their pages if they were to write about the great achievements of the a Team. From the moment the news broke on the elitist and uncaring face, the NKF, Mas Selamat, CPF Life, Medisave, HDB market pricing, ERPs and public transport fares, electricity tariffs, GST, investment of reserves, minibonds etc etc, the solutions or the way they were handled fell far short, very short, of the expectations of what an A Team can do. Some may disagree and still have great faith in the A Team and would think that these are the best we got and the best were done. For those who expect better, they may want to look for a better A Team, one that pays $10 mil each instead of the present paltry sum of $2m to $4m. We should be looking for rocket scientists, the best legal minds from Yale, the best economic minds from Harvard or whatever to become politicians. We can pay for them. After all we have paid so much just for a few pieces of medals from the sports arena. The money will be well spent for a better A Team to run the country. Unfortunately my reservation is that God has his own plans. God does not endowed an Einstein to be a great scientist to become a politician. Making an Einstein a politician will make the human race lose a great scientist and gain a mediocre politician but paid a great scientist income. It also goes for a Bill Gate. We would not have MicroSoft but a very average politician who will be very unhappy that he did not make his multi billion income and scheming everyday to make a few millions more. A rocket scientist or the brightest mind in any profession is not a sure formula for a great national leader. You need one with a heart in the right place. There may be some freaks in history that are great in the profession as well as in leading a nation. But freaks don't appear often. One swallow does not make a summer. Is the A Team formula a right formula?

Support Raymond Lim's idea of free transport

After reading the discussion in TOC, I am also convinced that we should support Raymond Lim's idea of a 1.5% GST increase and free transport for all Singaporeans. And if we continue to charge the same price for PRs and non foreigners, maybe no need 1.5% increase, 1% maybe good enough. Let's all support this brilliant suggestion. Assuming if a household's expenditure is $4k, 1.5% will be $60 pm. A family of 4 will probably save $200 or more a month with free public transport. OK, no deterioration in service must be a pre condition. A family spending $2k pm will only add another $30 pm. And everyone can travel freely all over the island any time of the day and year. It will be good socially and for all businesses. The rich who spend big sure won't mind paying a little more. Or they can take some back by taking public transport and park their cars at home. Good for reducing traffic jams too. Give the man a Tiger, man!