An issue of right and popular

Sin Boon Ann shared some of his thoughts and angst for being an MP and having to make decisions that border between right and popular in an article in Today paper. He quoted the issue of building rental flats in his ward and the conflicting demands of his constituents to want to keep things as they are and not wanting the negative aspects of rental flats in their midst. Sin Boon Ann’s right in this case is about doing something that is necessary as against something that is popular. The building of rental flats in an estate is unpopular but right in the context of meeting the needs of people who can only rent. It is like locating a funeral parlour or crematorium in an estate. They have to be located somewhere if there is a need for it. Not your estate, then someone’s estate. I don’t thing the conflict between doing something right and popular is that big a problem. Why doesn’t he discuss about doing something which is right to the govt but not right to the people? Something which the govt think is right but the people don’t think so, or worst, affecting the people’s right? One good example is the people’s money in the CPF. The govt may think that it is right to keep the people’s money under all kinds of excuses, minimum sum, CPF Life, Medisave etc etc. What about the people’s right to their money and how to use and when to use their money? Don’t the people have any right or say to their money? In this case there is the people’s right versus the govt’s right on what is the right thing to do. Would Sin Boon Ann or any MP want to share their concern, views or misgivings or conscience prick on this issue? Just because the govt think that this is right, the right thing to do, it does not mean that the people also think so. And this issue is much more serious than the siting of rental flats.

The gag order

It is reported in the ST that a local club is going to impose a gag order on its members to prevent them from speaking about club matters to the public, otherwise disciplinary action will be taken against the member. Some other clubs interviewed too were surprised that this kind of thing is happening in this enlightened city with enlightened beings. Gagging means nothing said, nothing heard, so no problem. On second thought, I think it is a good idea. If no one is talking, there will be no issues to talk about, and all will be peace under heaven. It is only when people start to talk about an issue that an issue becomes and issue. Look at the internet, if there is no internet, many issues will be long forgotten. Today it is reported that Indonesia is trying to curb the growing influence of the internet, by gagging I supposed. Let's return to the old world of saying nothing, seeing nothing, hearing nothing and doing nothing. Life will definitely be better, and more peaceful. If anyone got murdered, let it be. Don't say anything, and no one will know about the murder. Then everyone will say, see, no murder. The world shall progress to the world of silent movies.

A fare cut, a fare cut!

Public transport fare to go down by 2.5%, reported Today. Cheaper transport fare from July 3, reported mypaper. So we have a fare cut, a fare cut, or a fare hike! Which is which? I copied below extract from "Blowin' in the wind" blog for ease of comparison. The Straits Times reports public transport fares will dip by 2.5 per cent from July 3, but savings will vary from commuter to commuter. The fact is fares are going up --- appreciably for longer journeys. While the minimum fare for the first 3.2km on an airconditioned bus is going up by just two cents from 69 cents to 71 cents, commuters will have to pay up to 10 cents more for every kilometre after that. And it is going to make a difference. The longest trip now on an air-conditioned bus with an EZ-link card costs S$1.65 cents, according to the SBS Transit website. The same trip with the same card will cost S$1.94 from July 3, according to the Public Transport Council. So we have a fare cut for some and a fare hike for some. So, shall we call it a fare cut or a fare hike? Beats me really.

SGX asking for public views

The SGX is asking the public for views on whether it is ok to let banks become trading members, ie full time brokers to trade in stocks. Is this a fair proposition to ask the public? In the case of locking up the people's CPF savings through minimum sum, CPF Life, locking them up in the Medisave, the public's view was not sought. They just do it without any need for consultation when it should as the people would have a lot to say on their own money and things affecting them directly. The issues were then more easily understood. Here we have a financial issues that have implications and consequences beyond the layman in the street. Only the academics or finance professionals would be able to give any reasonable views and inputs. But these people are unlikely to waste their time as their time and effort are expensive. So who does SGX expect to respond to their invitation for views on such a technical issue? It will be more meaningful for Sheng Siong to ask the public if it is ok for them to take over the wet markets and change them into something else. It would be more meaningful if Teo Ho Pin and other MPs affected by this wet market issue to ask their constituents for views and feedback. The public can only make reasonable feedback on things that they can comprehend at their level. The talents at SGX should be in a better position to decide whether the banks should be allowed to dabble in stocks. Is there a conflict of interests? Should banks be allowed to deviate from their core business into other high risk areas? How would it affect the businesses of other financial institutions? Would there be unfair advantages or unlevel playing field? How would it affect the jobs in the industry? How would it affect the stock market as a whole? And there are many more issues related to this move, ethical, moral and administrative etc etc. The answer is best answered by the professionals paid to do the job.

Goldman Sachs made US$3.46 billion in a quarter

There you have it, the most profitable bank in the world. How could a bank make that kind of money in 3 months? What kind of business is it in? I don't think the most profitable casino can make this kind of money in three months. Must take out my hat to Goldman Sachs. And they too were recipients of public funds during the financial crisis, and nearly collapsed. How could the turnaround be so dramatic? I am very sure they are not doctoring their books. The profit must be real. So where did they make this kind of money? CDOs, hedge funds, stock markets? When they can make this kind of money, someone out there is losing big time. And many broking houses are recommending a buy on Goldman Sachs despite it being sued by the SEC. Who is wiser? It is good to believe that money can be made so easily. All the banks must adopt the Goldman Sachs business model if they want to make this kind of money.