We will

We will look after our old, our weak and our sick! We will house them, feed them and care for them! We will return their savings as promised and not suka suka keep it at our pleasure! We will build housing at really affordable price, not market price! We will build hospitals to care for our sick, not at astronomical prices! Hmmmm, I think any potential political party that adopts the above as their party slogan will be seen as too idealistic, not pragmatic. Maybe foolish.

Ouch! it's painful

In January 2008, GIC invested US$6.88b in convertible preferred securities of Citigroup, which at the time would have given it a 4% stake in the bank if converted to common stock. According to a Securities and Exchange Commission filing late last month, GIC now owns a beneficial 5.3% stake, or 303.8m shares, in Citigroup. These include preferred shares that can be converted into 261.1 million common shares. Based on Citi's $1.95 closing price Friday, the stake is worth $592.4 million. The above is an extract from a WSJ article posted in www.littlespeck.com. From US$6.8b to US$592.4, that is less than 10% left. Oooooh, it is so painful.

The enormity of it all

Which is more serious? The escape of an international terrorist who was planning to blow up our airport or the loss of at least $100b of our reserves, or the tax payers' money? Is the selling of the series of minibonds and other toxic products to the public more serious than a stock market beefed up with many dubious stocks or management that we hardly know and accounting systems that are difficult to verify, and a system that allows the big boys to bring the small investors to the cleaners? Both are very serious issues and have very serious implications to the well being of the state and its people. It would be best for the professionals to deal with them in depth than for me to touch on them briefly in an internet forum. Let me deal with the Mas Selamat escape versus the $100b loss. We can look at them from the implications and consequences to come, as well as the lapses and the system to prevent their occurrence. We can also look at the execution and the processes that led to these two incidents. In the Selamat case, we can't imagine how he would hit back and the untold damages and pain that can be inflicted on the people and assets. We can live our lives as if nothing has happened. But wait, if he is around, and should he be successful in what he set out to do before, we will regret deeply for his escape. When it happens, no amount of consolation and remorse can make up for it. No excuses can make up for it. How he escaped and the patching up of the system had been dealt with and hopefully, keeping our fingers crossed, it is not going to happen a second time. And the $100b loss! How long it took to build up this sum of money? How much can it do for the people if we have not lost them? And how long will it take to make back this kind of money? Just think about it. To be fair, some part of the losses are expected given the risk involved in investing. But two points need to relook at. Should so much money be invested in high risk assets? Then the next question is whether some deals were done too hastily, insufficient ground work and effort to understand the risk involved, and could be avoided? And the most silly question to ask is whether we have been too trusting of the Americans? Yes, we lost a lot of money, billions in the last few deals, mostly because of trust. And we put in so much money without even a board representation! What, playing masak masak? Giving away Monopoly Games money? These are huge sums of money that must be carefully handled and managed. The way it was distributed begs for a serious re examination and introspection into our mentality, policies and decision making in these areas. Trust and too trusting will get us only into deep shit. Would there be serious indept analyses of these incidents by the professionals and academics, or would they find them too hot to handle? I will touch on the toxic products and stock market separately.

Cyberspace the next battle ground

From what Hsien Loong had said, cyberspace will be the new battle ground for the next general election. The PAP has been preparing for it and the younger members are being encouraged to play a more active role to lead the charge. He has forgotten that Lim Swee Say will be a more popular blogger if he has his own blog. He has a lot of interesting and captivating stories to attract hoards of bloggers. The new media or cyberspace can no longer be ignored as the backwater that was hardly treaded. Over the last few years it has gained tremendous ground and eating into the readership of the old media. People are looking for alternative views instead of the stead and predictable comments of TOM. And with the flowery and unrestrained lingo used, it is an act that is hard to beat. We will see a battle for readership between the new and old media, one that is more critical and cynical against one that is pro govt and singing praises. Or as Hsien Loong said, the traditional or old media will 'present trusted, unbiased and informed opinions' though a bit tame. On the other corner (I said) will be the untrusted, biased and less informed opinions of the new media, but sexy and attractive. And don't forget the power of podcast and pictures. The presentation of the most beautiful angle or the ugliest angle can make or break a candidate. Imagine one getting caught on video or photos in the most compromising position, I mean like digging the nose. Pictures can tell a very distorted story. An ugly or hostile face will be a put off immediately. Now this is not going to be the protected turf of TOM any more. Both can print whatever they like, selectively, and definitely biased. Oops, TOM's pictures will be unbiased. Only the pictures of new media will be biased. Interesting scenarios coming up. I doubt TOM will be anything given its slow printing schedule.

Notable quote by Hsien Loong

'On a long term basis, overall, the way the Govt has managed the money, we haven't done badly.' Lee Hsien Loong I disagree. We have managed our money well until we started the shopping spree. And the last few deals to buy the banks, were at best, good intention but poor execution. Losing $100b can never be called 'haven't done badly.'