Anwar suing after being called a traitor

Anwar is taking up a law suit to sue those who called him a traitor of the Malays, for selling out Malay supremacy to the non Malays. Utusan Melayu reported today with challenging statements like 'Who will hold the position of Chief Secretary? ..Who will be senior officers in the police and military?' It is so easy for CB politicians to go on a name calling campaign to brand the other party in whatever way they like and have the media to join in and make the impression stick. But the masses must think and decide for themselves who is what. Is a politician who everyday chants 'Melayu Ketuanan' a champion of the Malays when he pockets millions and billions and throws a few coins at the poor Malays? Or is one who claims to fight for all races, and to assist all the poor regardless of race a traitor to the Malay race? What is a traitor? Who is a traitor? Will the Malay Malaysians ponder a little before they decide? I think the PKR supporters have already decided.

GE did it for its own good?

This is another angle that some people viewed the generosity of the Great Eastern offer. And some of its competitors also quickly jumped in to join the chorus. Indeed GE will gain some PR mileage in this initiative, and sure its customers and the general public will see GE in a different light, definitely more favourable than the mechanical FIs. After the dust has settled, after all the evasions, dodgings and excuses, people are still going to see GE as a more reliable, trustworthy, dependable and customer friendly organisation instead of an aloof, legalistic, calculative and you die your problem organisation. Then one may also want to ask, why didn't the rest of the FIs also think like GE, pay out and make their customers happy, do a one time PR exercise, absorb the losses, which is really peanuts, and save some of the uncles and aunties and their nest eggs? Is this not a worthy cause, a decision that is human, decent and being seen as a caring organisation to do business with? Or maybe these FIs are so entrenched in their position as market leaders that there is no need to spend on goodwills or to cultivate trustworthiness from its customers, that the customers will surely go back to them for more business. No, no, this is not the proper way to do business. It will undermine our business integrity. We need to protect the snake oil sellers so that they will continue to do their business here. it will encourage more snake oil sellers to relocate here, a perfect place to sell snake oil. I am very sure that all those badly hit by the fiasco and badly treated by the FIs will swear never to do business with them anymore. Say whatever you like, GE has done a very human and decent thing, to benefit itself and also the customers. We need more financial institutions that are run in a more humanly ways, where the interest of the customers comes first.

In Praise of Human Decency

Great Eastern has done a coup of sort to offer a big payout when it does not need to. In fact the precedent has been set for it to play by the market practice and save a lot of money, except for the pain and loss the investors will continue to bear. One question is whether Great Eastern has crossed the line to the extent of undermining the correct business practice and the rule of law here that we are so proud of, and chose to invest in a bit of morality, ethics and human decency, which are only good for the souls but not for the bottom line. It was a rare moment indeed in a country that crows about making money at all cost, where scoundrels are praised and held in high esteem, and not how the money was made, where making money is the end all, with no qualms about human decency. Investors have been complaining that they were questioned by high and mighty officers of financial institutions demanding only to know if they understood English, and if they had signed on the documents. If either was a yes, no further explanation was needed, and out of the door they went, with minimal or no compensation. Legally right, legally binding but morally shameful. Technically and legally, the financial institutions are right by applying the rule of law. That could be the reason why they were so arrogant that they were doing the right thing. It's all legal. The investors understood and signed the documents. These were enough not to compensate them fully or at all. Caveat emptor man! Just as much we need to protect the investors, the financial institutions also need to be protected under the rule of law. So which should overrule the other, the rule of law or morals and ethics? I think when in court the rule of law will be upheld and not any wishy washy stuff like morality, ethics or empathy. We cannot undermine our system of correct business practice, our rule of law, and compromise on such rulings. The peddlers of snake oil also need to be protected under the rule of law. My view is that Great Eastern must have come to the conclusion that the product must be flawed and morally not right to make this kind of money from the their customers. They have set aside all legal and technical arguments in their favour and chose to make a human decision to return the money to their clients. The decision of Great Eastern speaks a lot about the quality of their leadership. Something we find very lacking in this materialistic world and something we only heard in motherhood statements but not in practice.

10 is to 11 or 12, or 11 or 12 is to 10

After economy recovers, 10 workers should do the work of 11 or 12 – Lim Swee Say Can we have similar quotes like 10 ministers doing the work of 11 or 12 ministers, or 10 MPs doing the work of 11 or 12 MPs, or 10 MDs doing the work of 11 or 12 MDs? The answer is obvious. The higher it goes, the more difficult and complex is the job. You really need 11 to 12 ministers to do the job of 10 ministers, 11 or 12 MPs to do the job of 10 MPs, and 11 or 12 MDs to do the job of 10 MDs.

Another myth in the making?

Ho Ching's proposal to invite the public to co invest with Temasek has been receiving quite a lot of approval and favourable comments. At face value it looks like another great proposal for investors to grow their nest eggs. But before people plonk in their hard earned savings, they better think very carefully as investment is a high risk enterprise. The higher the returns, the greater the risks. Not very long ago, there was this great scheme called COWEC. It is a company welfare scheme where employees and companies joinly contributed to the fund to invest in stocks with the belief that stock investment was a sure win game in the long run. It was supposed to guarantee a higher rate of return than the CPF. It is now history. The same crazy belief also reemerged in the early 1990s when all the clever analysts and investment experts were churning out reports on how great investing in stocks and shares were against all other instruments. In the long run, investing in stocks will generate the highest returns compare to other forms of investments. This faith led to the release of CPF funds for stocks and shares and a kind of frenzy when every CPF contributor had a stock investment account. Again it became history when many of them lost their nest eggs, contributing to the miserable state of our CPF savings. Would co investment with Temasek lead to the same fate? Can investment guarantee a safe and high return? The fact that the CPF Life scheme has an escape clause in case the fund becomes insolvent speaks for itself.