The Age of Demonising over?

During the cold war period the western powers and their media went on a tenacious campaign to demonise anything Communist, Russian or China as bad, demons, devils, destructive, terror, evil or whatever that is negative. This went on for more than half a century till today. There is a little easing off lately with the fall of the Soviet Union and the emergence of a capitalist China. The demonising is still going on. The events following the publishing of the book Men In White could be an indication that the Age of Demonising your enemies or opponents is slowly coming to an end. Or will it be? Our general election is around the corner. The opposition political parties are not in the same league of the Communists and the Barisan Socialists. They are more like any other ordinary citizens. Would they be subject to the kind of demonising to discredit them as reasonable people unworthy to be elected as the people's representatives in Parliament? For that matter, why are cyberspace and alternative media being regarded in the likes of dissidents or anti establishment parties, an evil force that must be watched like a hawk and if possible nabbed and put into cold storage? I seem to have this impression, rightly or wrongly, that this is the sentiment. Is it true or just my imagination? Are they that dangerous, that destructive? By the way, alternative parties are just groups of individuals offering an alternative to run the country and not gangsters or mobs or triads or demons. They need to be treat respectfully as any deserving citizens, in fact better, for their noble intention to serve the people and nation. There are thugs, rogues and scoundrels in their midst, possible. In fact these undesirable elements are present in all corners of society, among the elite as well. Will we see the passing of the Age of Demonising? Or calling people names, branding people as bad, etc etc is still a way of protecting ones own self interest. They are bad, we are good!

The fragility of our stock market

Yesterday was the 10th anniversary of the SGX and it was all celebration and a job well done. Everyone was given a pat on the back for their contributions to the success and growth of the SGX from 500 companies to more than 700 companies. And we are now recognised as a serious international player. The success of a stock market depends on many factors, the system and administrator, the products and the players. I have dealt with some of the problems of system flaw in the past, especially the uneven playing field which I still find it unacceptable and unfair to the small players. I will now briefly touch on the products and players in the market. Other than our local companies, we have introduced stocks from some 20 companies as proof of our progress in internationalising our stock market. I wonder how many of these stocks are being traded and worth the cost of having them listed in our market. The more glaring issue is the S Chips. These came in to replace the Malaysian CLOB when Mahathir threw in the spanner. Are we better off? Or are the investors better off? Do we get more money for the investors or more outflow of our hard earned money with a net loss due to frauds and misrepresentation? What is the bottom line? The players in our market are the big foreign funds, local broking houses, small and big local investors, and the increasing role of remisiers own trading. The foreign funds come and go, some short term, some trading furiously like the small traders or worst, with programme trading to scalp whatever they can from the market. Both the funds and broking houses are taking full advantage of their low cost, ie, practically no commission to trade against the small investors. Who will win in such a game is obvious. With commission dwindling to a level that it is no longer worth the risk exposure, many remisiers are resorting to their own trading. Why risk thousands or hundreds of thousands of dollars for a $20 or $200 commission. The mistakes are very costly and so are bad debts. Not many people understand the role of remisiers and how unfair is the system towards them. With a small population of active investors, the market is just unsustainable without the remisier acting as a multiplier through their role as the guarantor and money lender to the investors. No banks will take such risk and exposure with minimal or no collateral. The alternative is not to allow such risk and exposure in the system, which means the market will practically come to a standstill, with negligible trading activities. There was a myth that with the introduction of internet trading, there is no need for this middleman. This has proven drastically wrong as the cost to maintain such a system negates the pittance returns from the traders. How many employees can actually trade online when they are working in their offices? The big players have no time to stick to a computer terminal when a phone call is all they need to do. How long can the remisiers continue to trade on their own and to make money out of the system is an issue that will soon play itself out. The recent mini bullrun is an aberration. In most instances, the remisiers are losing their pants because of the uneven playing field and programme trading. Now there are things like dark pool, preview of trading data, speed trading etc which all favours the big players. Assuming that the pool of remisiers find that they cannot win in such a market and call it a day, assuming that no contra trading is available as there is no remisier to be the middleman to act as guarantor to pay for the bad debt, how active can our market be? Will the big funds still be here when the small investors are no longer there to be scalped? Is our market sustainable in the long run with such a small pool of traders and with increasing number of stocks and derivatives being introduced into the market?

Myth 210 - Singapore Govt's money is not the people's money?

Letter To The Wall Street Journal, 8 Sep 2009 Correcting Temasek Misperceptions We wish to correct some fundamental misperceptions in your Aug. 31 editorial "Temasek's Revised Charter." First, Temasek is an investment company set up as an asset owner to seek returns by taking investment risks. While our sole shareholder is the Singapore government, we are not a "fund," and do not manage Singapore "citizens' earnings." It is factually wrong to imply that Singaporeans have no choice but to "keep their money with the fund." The above is part of a statement by Temasek's MD Corporate Affairs to the Wall Street Journal. To be specific, it says that it manages Singapore's govt's money and not Singapore "citizens' earnings". I am not sure if Singapore "citizens' earnings" is the same as Singapore citizens' money. As a layman, I think the citizens of Singapore will think or believe that the Govt's money is the citizens' money. But many in the forum have told me that this is not true. I think the Govt's money are money from the Govt's income, including taxes, rentals, sales of land and properties, services etc. Technically, they are not the citizens's earnings but the Govt's earnings. Let me offer another example to clarify this explanation. If I lend $1k to A and B lend the $1k to C, C is right to say that he is not spending my money. Cause he borrows it from B and is accountable to B. So Temasek is managing the Govt's money, not the people's earnings. Right.

Notable quotes by Jim Rogers

"They have more than doubled the American national debt in one weekend for a bunch of crooks and incompetents. I'm not quite sure why I or anybody else should be paying for this." Jim Rogers Who are these incompetents and crooks? These are people who churned out corporate profits in the billions when the organisations are technically bankrupts. And mind you, they are the supertalents from the top notch universities. And they do not know that they have done wrong. And they are demanding the same crazy pay and bonuses again. You don't need crooks and robbers when you have them around. And they are much more greedy and deadlier. They have no shame, no sense of moral justice. They only demand a ransom from the organisations and shareholders.

SCCCI broke its silence

The Singapore Chinese Chamber of Commerce and Industry has joined the debate over the lack of linguistic skills of foreign immigrants working in the sales industry. Many forum letter writers have written to the media to complain about this lack of English Language skill and some even suggested that people who can't speak English should not be allowed here. Ah, it brings back memories of the good old days when a pass in English is the key condition for a job in the colonial civil service. I think it is a good idea to make English proficiency a criteria for employment here. Maids, construction workers, sales staff etc and who else to include in this category? Employers must be fuming mad. It will give life to a new industry in language learning, and more private language schools to come into this new business.