Two little traders caught

They got this guy Jerome Kerviel for chalking up a loss of $8.9 billion while trading for Societe Generale, and a Fabrice Tourre of Goldman Sachs for concocting ‘Frankenstein products’ that led to the 2008 financial meltdown. Both were traders in their early thirties. And for all the things that they had done, the huge sum of money involved and the papers that were pushed around for approvals, no one seems to be responsible or know anything about their wrongdoings except themselves. This gives the impression that the two must be running the two banks independently, just like Nick Leeson, without supervision, without reporting to anyone, and answering to no one. And there are no internal audit and control systems to check their actions. And for what he had done, Jerome said he was treated like a hooker, being praised daily for the earnings he made that were good. And it could be pretty quite the same in the case of Fabrice, the darling or Fabulous Fab of Goldman Sachs. Jerome has written a book about the ‘big bank orgy’ that he witnessed as a young trader. And the rest of their superiors, the administrators and regulators are all so innocent. This is what Jerome got to say, ‘I am struck by the fact that nothing has been done during the past two years of the financial crisis so that the causes of the crisis are addressed and a situation like mine does not happen again.’ Was there a crisis? Uh no. Anything happened? Uh no. The financial system is kicking again, and the banks are making big bucks too. So what’s wrong? The financial system is fine, just fine. Time to loot again.

A Malay elite’s response

Hussin Mutalib, an Associate Professor, responded to Muigai’s recommendation to consider a ‘stimulus package’ for the Malays in a letter to the ST forum. He said that there was some merit in not dismissing Muigai’s report altogether and a little tweaking might be good. While saying this, he acknowledged that there were some govt policies that were needed from the pragmatic point of view, ie barring Malays from sensitive appoints in the SAF and the adoption of GRCs to prevent qualified Malays from defeat in an election. There are good and bad in such policies which are obvious. Hussin also dispelled the beliefs that the Malays were being discriminated against, and non Malays were simply smarter than Malays. The former is generally true except for the appointment to sensitive positions but there is a pragmatic angle to it. The second belief has been proven wrong in many instances when Malay students have excelled and better themselves over the other races on their own merits. Every 500 years a genius could be thrown up from any race or class while every group will have their talents and duds. The disparity in the progress between Malays and the other races has been there since independence. Historically, during colonial days and post independence, the progress of the various races, particularly in schools, were left primarily to their own individual effort. All started from the same footing with no special assistance or affirmative action. Why then is there a need to have some form of affirmative action to help the Malays now? In this line of thought, there is an assumption that the Malays will do better than what they are today if given some assistance. Also, the disparity is seen as something abnormal and unacceptable. What if the disparity is in favour of the minorities and not the majority, would affirmative actions be deemed necessary? There are some questions to be asked. After more than a century of coexistence, the present status quo could be the natural balance of things. If this situation has come about naturally after so many years, would a window period of a few years of affirmative actions make any difference? What if, after affirmative action, and the Indians or Chinese become the least progressive, does it mean that there will be a need for affirmative action as well? Where will all these lead to? Would it be satisfactory only if the majority is the group that is lacking behind the minorities? Or is the expectation that an acceptable status is that all three groups are progressing at the same rate? Is this natural or possible, or a should be situation? Given the rate of progress that is being made by all groups, would it be a better objective to raise the level of every group, to improve their well beings, rather than to harp on the fact that one group is two steps behind another? It is never the natural order of things that everything is the same or can be the same. Can all countries in the world progress at the same pace and be at the same stage of economic development? Seriously, is affirmative action the answer? If the community is not honest enough to face the problems and address them squarely, no affirmative action can bring about positive changes.

Time to fix the rating agencies

The scoundrels at Capitol Hill are sleeping with the bankers and finance thugs in New York and are skirting around many areas that they should be looking into. According to a New York Times editorial in Today's paper, they have completely missed out the rating agencies like Moody's, Standard and Poor, and Fitch. These agencies are equally culpable for the mess in the financial meltdown with their triple A ratings on toxic CDOs. The editorial commented, 'It is not just that raing agencies are incompetent, made wrong assumptions about the housing market and used flawed models to evaluate mortgage-backed securities. Their business is rife with conflicts of interest.' The last sentence is the crux of the matter. Conflicts of interest among financial institutions and the products they are selling. The call for banks to return to its traditional business and not be allowed to dabble in all kinds of investment is a move in the right direction. In the local context, conflicts of interest is also a serious problems. But of course in the land of demigods and immortals, they could not see themselves compromising on their heavenly integrity. They will never be faulted for conflicts of interest. They could even be tasked to self regulate their activities. A similar case to the rating agencies that have been allowed to get away scot free is the lead managers and auditors that brought in shady companies for listing. Several have gone down the drain despite the glowing reports put up by the auditing companies. And no one is taken to task. The whole finance world is run by scoundrels and crooks protecting each other's backside. The world is looking to America to take the lead, for they do not know how or want to do anything.

100,000 more jobs coming

We can expect 100,000 jobs to be created and some will definitely have to go to foreign talents. How many will go to them and how this will translate into more foreigners in the country and how this will affect our infrastructure and housing for our people is an urgent problem? Do we have the ability and people to compute all these and start doing the necessary so that no one will be caught off guarded again? A 50% of these jobs going to foreigners could add 200,000 people into the system, assuming each comes with a family of 4. The failure in our housing system to cater for such big inflows of residents here should be a lesson not to be repeated. Then the transportations, even COEs will be affected. The eating places, entertainment, ok we have two casinos to take in some of the influx, but many facilities will be stretched and stressed. Are we prepared for our targeted 6m population? I know many are and have already bought into properties and waiting for the prices to go through the roof. For those who are still looking for a property, better go and grab anything that is available. The shortage is unlikely to be met if history is to tell its story again. Before we bring in another 200,000, let’s get the housing sorted out first. This is the commonsensical thing that any simple mind would not fail to miss. At this moment I don’t think anything has been done on this area. Some people even believed that the demand for BTO launches were fake.

Human rights lesson from Singapore

Maxwell Coopers wrote an article in FreeMalaysiaToday forum with the above title. He was amused by the UN representative, Githu Muigai's recommendations about what Singapore should do to improve its human rights. I too agree with Maxwell. What Muigai should do is to look at all the countries around the world and see if any of them could have a better system and record than Singapore on human rights and treatment of minorities. Look at countries around Singapore for comparison. He should be there instead of in Singapore. There is one good reason for him to be in Singapore. And that is to study the brilliant and workable system that we have put to practice and how the general well being of our minority groups are better than the standard of living of majorities in other countries, and how they could practise their customs and cultures freely as long as they don't infringe on the rights of others. The majority is also subject to this restraint. This will be the best testimony that Muigai could bring to the UN and recommend that the Singapore system be used as the model for other countries plagued with discriminations against their minorities. I think he would have done a great job in doing this and will receive a standing ovation at the UN instead of his ridiculous recommendations to improve a system that can only be found workable in paradise.