Work till death do us part

The new mantra, to work for as long as one is able, no retirement age, will take the Singapore employment scene by storm, that is, if it is implemented. And this is very likely so as the advocate is none other than LKY himself. What does this simple change in employment policy means? Colossal! We will have more ancients staying in politics and govt till the end of time. Legislation will have to be changed. CPF will be obsolete. Lifestyle will change as 60 will now be the prime of one’s life and 20 to 30 years more to go. The young managers, in their 30s and 40s will have to make way or wait long long. The oldies will be making a comeback. And we may not need a 6.5 million population after all. If everyone is employable and working, the workforce will not shrink so dramatically. And it really makes sense to our 25 to 30 year education system. Such a long education will be a complete waste of resources if the graduants only can work for 20 or 30 years. Now, with no retirement age, the productive years could be extended to 50 or 60 years. I am all for it. Anyone want to employ me? Can take another 30 year mortgage! Wow, HDB flats repayable in 60 years, … cheap, cheap, cheap.

Notable quote by Jack Lin

'WE got first class ministers and Govt, but still got third class citizens'. By Jack Lin The above quote posted by a YPAP activist in the PAP Facebook is incurring the wrath of netizens and PAP leaders are coming out to contain the damage. Jack Lin too has came out to apologise and explain what he actually meant and not to insult Singaporeans. My view is that Jack Lin, like all netizens, should be free to express his views. We all have strong views of things, positive and negative. It is a freedom of expression and people can agree or disagree with him. Jack Lin and his comrades can then defend their position and eventually a common ground would be reached and both sides will understand each other better. What's wrong with a personal view like this? Netizens took offend in the sense that the view could be a reflection of the party or the likes of what future PAP leaders will be. The party can easily come out, like it did now, to say that it is just an individual's viewpoint. Period. It is a healthy discourse which naturally has opposing views. As long as everyone is sensible, keep it to the topic and not resort to name calling or suing, I would say, let the debate continues. And Jack Lin should be free to say what he wants to say. In fact everyone should be free to express his views, logically and coherently of course. We cannot keep people's views, especially genuine and sincere ones, under the lid. It would be hypocrisy.

China did the right thing

When faced with American provocation and drum beating to raise tension in the Korean Peninsula, China did the right thing by telling the provocateurs to get lost. What China did was to conduct its own war exercises in its coastal waters. And by so doing, it activated the live firing zones in the Yellow Sea. So live rounds would be fired and if American and South Korean ships strayed into the area, it would be at their own risk. And the risk would include the surrounding area as the soldiers could misfire or fire at the wrong place or wrong target. The Americans knew that China meant business when protecting its own territorial waters is concerned and quietly move their war mongering to the sea between Japan and North Korea. North Korea should do the same, start its own wargames and activate the sea as a live firing zone. Then stray bullets and missiles can hit wrong target accidentally. That should keep the warmongering nations at bay and to think twice. North Korea is not Iraq and the Americans could only second guess how far their missiles can go. The west coast states of America should not be a problem.

Trading companies instead of trading stocks

I have this enlightening theory about trading stocks. Ok, it is not new. Sell stocks of mature companies and industries. These are old and have very little growth potential. Buy into growth stocks in emerging markets and industries. Such stocks have very high potential for exponential growth. Ok, there are some risks involved. Out of 100 maybe 90 will fail or fold up. But the 10 or so stocks or companies will make enough to cover for all the losses. This simple theory can be applied to buying and selling companies as well. For example old mature companies like banks, SIA, Keppel, Sembawang Corp, SPH etc etc, are all too old and ripe. Not much growth potential. Take profit and sell them away. Use the cash to buy new growth companies, companies in emerging economies or growth industries. If one hits a good one, like Apple, never mind losing the rest. Oh, just a word of caution. When applying this strategy, make sure that it is not your own money that is put at risk. The best way is to set up a fund, use other people’s money. At the worst, if the theory does not work, just fold up the company and start another new one.

The Economics of Pragmatism

We don't have enough land, above and below, to build longkangs to prevent floods. Our land are about the most expensive assets in the world. We need them to generate wealth than to collect rain water. We may not have land for longkangs, but sure we have plenty of lands to build prime properties for big profits. And sure we have plenty of land to take in another 5 million people. The main consideration is to squeeze as much value as we can from the plentiful or limited land, depending on how one wants to view it, so that the developers can laugh all the way to the banks. A little flooding is acceptable. That we can live with, but no land shall be wasted. It is all about economics and maximisation of returns. I hope no property developers reading this seriously think that they can build properties without having to build longkangs. Shouldn't the two be part and parcel of developing infrastructure? The more buildings and structures are built, the more people living on them, the need to have more longkangs and sewerage pipes. Economics and profits may be important, but the longkangs are complimentary to the existence of all the infrastructure and cannot be dispensed with. You can have your buildings, but you must built a network of longkangs to make the place liveable. Like they say, you can't have your cake and eat it as well.