Singapore’s two addictions

Be in Ice or Heroin, an addiction is an addiction. The danger of all addictions is that it takes more and more to get the same high. This means it cannot be stopped or hell will break lose. It is a vicious and very destructive cycle. Our country’s two main addictions are OPM and OPT. OPM comes from statutory boards and the CPF. These money becomes cheap loans to be invested, some called it gambling for big stakes, for high returns. Theoretically it sounds good, borrowing cheap money to invest for big returns. The problems come when the returns are not enough to pay for the low interest or the high operation cost. Then what? Don’t pay back! But this cannot do. The payback can be delayed, even for generations, but the time must come when someone will call for payback time. The Americans have been very successful in borrowing OPM and thinking that it was a good thing. It was a good thing when they can afford to pay back. Now their debt has ballooned to a point that they cannot pay back. It becomes a debt that is too big to pay back and too big to default. The consequences are grave. We are intoxicated by OPM and happily plunging into the same deep end as the Americans, thinking that there is no need to pay back. The truth is that no matter how many spins and schemes can be created to delay the payback, the spins and schemes only add to the gravity of the problem. There is no running away unless we strike lottery. For the last ten years or more we have depended heavily on OPT, Other People’s Talent. We saved a lot of cost to produce these talents and we used them cheaply, making more savings. Our whole economic growth formula is now dependent on OPT. Like OPM, it is another deadly drug. There are side effects to the addiction and there is a big price to pay for. No drugs that give one a high does not come with a price. What is this price and when will be pay back time? For the moment, we only see the good side of OPT and OPM. But like all good things, they are too good to be true. Anything that is too good to be true is dangerous. And the more dangerous part of it is that we cannot see the danger of it. The fundamental economics principles of hard work, thrift, small but genuine profits, not easy profits, high productivity, better goods and better services are discarded for high risks, high returns, for easy profits that we don’t have to work for it. Like the Americans creating all kinds of fictitious and worthless paper products to be sold to the suckers. Worthless notes, toxic notes, derivatives, are illusions that will go pop as they designed to do. OPM and OPT will also go pop one day. They cannot keep piling up with no limitations like turning on the tap and they will keep following. And like all fixes, you need more of them to sustain the next high.

South China Sea, an issue of US Commitment or Interference

Chua Chin Hon, ST’s Bureau Chief in Washington, wrote an article titled, ‘South China Sea issue a test of US Commitment’. The article can best be summed up as a western interpretation of events in South East and East Asia and the role of US to take charge as the undisputed Empire. It touched on how China was staking its claims to 80% of the South China Sea and how this would have rattled the littoral states. It took for granted the US position that 80% of the four oceans are part of their national interest without mentioning how the countries of the world would react to it. Then it pointed to the increasing Chinese military presence and drills as unacceptable developments while the huge military exercises of the American naval fleets in the East China Sea, Yellow Sea and South China Sea as how things should be. What is pertinent in the article is America’s leadership role in Asean. After Hilary Clinton’s attack on China’s position in the disputed South China Sea islands, which provoked a strong reaction from China, the Americans were quick to use this as an excuse to stake their claims to leadership in Asean and their role to lead Asean against China. As Ernest Bower of the Centre for Strategic and International Studies(CSIS) remarked, ‘If you rattle the cage with China like this and depart, you probably can’t be forgiven.’ And Bower added, ‘To be honest, there’s enough pressure now, particularly with the Chinese reaction, that it may require the Americans to take a leadership role (at this stage).’ This is exactly the intent of the Americans. Provoke a crisis situation and instigate the innocents to be a party to a dispute with the Americans as the undisputed leader. In Bower’s words, ‘I don’t see many Asean countries with the political courage to stand up and take the lead when the elephants are butting their heads.’ The Americans do not see the Asean countries capable of taking on the Chinese in a contentious situation when military is needed. Only they are capable of fighting a big country like China. Would the Asean states be dragged into a confrontation with China instigated by the Americans? The relationship between Asean and China has been one of diplomacy and peaceful negotiation. And Asean was and is able to take on China on an equal basis with no fear of China’s use of force. Would this stance be changed and Asean becoming another SEATO, an extended arm of the American Empire set to pitch against China in a military contest? Or would Asean be wise enough to steer clear of the American scheme of things and remain neutral and independent? The US is coveting a leadership role in Asean and this is the real issue, a test of Asean’s resilience and independence from big power domination. Has Asean been less effective over the years without carrying a mighty sword to the negotiating table and now see it necessary to have the backings of a superpower to conduct its dealings? Would Asean be goaded into a confrontation with China and turn Southeast Asia into a war torn region like the Middle East? This is what will likely to happen if the US is allowed to lead and dictate how Asean shall behave.

Notable Quote by Allan Snyder

‘I will be most distressed if my son comes back with a string of As. Going by my research, it would mean that he is probably not going to do anything exceptional.’ Allan Snyder, Director, Centre for the Mind, University of Sydney. Would words like these give comfort to our mothers and fathers of children without straight As and with some struggling at the bottom of the heap? I am no expert in education or predicting the future of children or assessing their potential. According to Snyder, his research shows that the champions and successful people have nothing to do with their academic achievements. Many have been very successful, even in technical and professional fields, without having straight As. Quite a number were drop outs from schools. The Americans have many luminaries in this category and so do we. Some billionaires in our midst would have been in the Normal Stream of our education system. The mystical thing is that their talents are not in the books. They are gifted or blessed to shine in different fields. How then can we persuade our parents to view things from a different perspective and not just straight As? Are there ways to change the mindset, change the branding and labelling, to accord recognition and acceptance of talents that are not academic geniuses but geniuses in their own rights in other fields? Where shall we start? We have been bungling with this notion of academic brilliance equals success and a good life, which is generally true but not the absolute truth. We need to take a different path, jump into the river or swim the ocean, to find ourself and our own meaning in life. Straight As will in all probability end up being a good civil servant, a good employee, and nothing spectacular. Many of the great inventions today came from non straight As students.

Aerial Photos of NDP

NDP Aerial Display

Just a few aerial pics of the NDP taken earlier.

National Day Message, A Retake

Every National Day is a time for reflection about what this country is all about. National Day brings to light the meaning of nation, and the perennial question being asked is whether we are a nation, or are we getting there. After 45 years of strenuous nation building exercises, sadly, we acknowledge that we are not getting near there. It is still a work in progress. Maybe this is a blessing. Why should we want to build a nation when we can have the best of both worlds? We can have the best people, the most successful people coming here to live in the best city modern history can provide, and we don’t have to be bothered with the responsibility of looking after incompetent and loser citizens who could not make the grade. Just simply tell them to go else where and the vacated place can be quickly filled up by more able and talented individuals who are hungrier and less demanding. An indirect way is to make the cost of living so high that they will quit voluntarily. Should we therefore be craving to build a nation? Or are we chasing a construct that is no longer relevant to a small city state? A hotel, a piece of prime land for those who can afford the best, with no obligations or commitments, no responsibility, run by a mercenary force of hardnosed businessmen should suffice. Let’s be real and pragmatic and reinvent ourselves. Ooops, ourselves is no longer relevant. There is no us or them. Only the board of directors of a prime estate offering its space for those who appreciate how well it is being run. No citizen to please, no need to plan for social security and cheap public services. Pay for what you get and pay to live here. Nothing is free. The present citizens can always opt out of the scheme, sell out, clear their CPF savings and move on. Let this be the last National Day and everything shall start anew on 10 August, no citizen, no NS, no govt services, no social services, no subsidies, no handouts, no entitlement mentality, no gripes. And no need to be bothered by unreasonable and demanding citizens. Ah, no need to build cheap public housing. Sell private properties only, to the highest bidder, to the one who can pay the highest market price. Welcome to the world’s Best Run Private Real Estate. PS. Of course I am talking cock. The difference is that I know I am talking cock.