Timothy Geithner was rebutted by Singapore and Hongkong

Tim Geithner, the American Secretary of Treasury, was calling for more stringent controls of dubious derivative tradings conducted by dubious operators with dubious modus operandi. He cautioned other regulators not to compromise their regulatory systems to accommodate the rogues of the finance industry that the US is trying to regulate more closely with more stringent rules and regulations. His fear is that while the US was tightening the screws, other regulations are playing easy to take in the rogues and their business. The danger the rogues and their malpractices were thrown into the wind at their own risks.

Singapore and Hongkong have stood up to defend their regulatory systems as much more stringent than the Americans and told the Americans to look elsewhere. Our systems are in good hands. No problems.

I also think so. Hope there is no outcry like the minibond crisis in the future. The next one or two years could be telling if we are doing the right thing. As things are going, my prediction is that some operators will start to retrench staff and cut cost as the business is not generating the returns to cover their overheads, that is, if things do not improve. That will be the test of whether we are doing the right thing or the wrong stuff. The rest are just rhetorics. Let’s wait for the real stuff to unfold.

Forcing round pegs into square holes

Just a month after the GE and Singaporeans are greeted with some refreshing changes in the way some ministries are working. Boon Wan is throwing out a whole basket of waste policies in one go. Tuck Yew is going down to the ground to understand the problems of the people and to explore solutions that will make life more pleasant to the citizens.

In short, they are trying to change the holes so that all shapes and sizes of pegs can fit in. This is a big deviation from past attitude and policies when every peg must be shaped to fit the square holes. Those that could not fit in, just too bad, it is their fault.

The thinking or mindset then was that I am calling the shot, I decide what is good for the people, and the people must fit into my criteria to benefit from my policies. A glaring example is how housing policies were shafted down the people’s throat. Singles, single mothers, under achievers, over achievers, people who messed up their lives for good or bad reasons, not my problem, you created your own problems. Singles go and get married, single mothers, go and get married, under achievers, downgrade to your station in life, over achievers, go to the private market. Ha, ha, ha. There is no need to sweat the little thing to worry about the people’s concern and their angst.

And it was a case of, I only build at my own convenience, at my terms, at my pleasure. You wait, ok? And you know how my policies worked, you plan your life and finances to suit my policies. Don’t muck around with me. What I am doing is the best you can ever get, with affordably priced housing that you can afford, to pay and to wait. Yes, you can afford, I say so. You can wait, I say so.

The way MND works and how it treated the people is about the best example of what it was like then. Now they are trying to listen to the people, wanting to know how to serve the people better. At least it is a big step forward, a departure from the high and mighty and arrogant style of the past.

Investigative journalism

There is a big report in the ST today about the number of MPs holding directorships in listed companies. Apparently Hsien Loong’s message has sunk in and not many are now holding such directorships, and those who are holding have only a handful to show.

It will be more interesting to know what the situation was like say a year ago or at its heyday when many MPs were sitting in the board of directors and how many were they accepting then. This will give a true picture of how effective Hsien Loong’s message has gone down and how the MPs have started to tow the line.

Another area of investigative journalism that the people would like to see is the remuneration of Ministers last year. This will be a good reference point to compare the change when the Salary Review Committee comes out with its recommendations. The 2009 and 2010 remuneration payouts are of great interests to the public and should not be forgotten though a review is in progress. It is a kind of a milestone, from where it came and where it goes.

Or perhaps some statisticians in the new media may want to take on this task. Many are dying to know so that they can tell how far the Salary Review Committee has come.

PAP sponsored Presidential candidate

Two interesting developments today with Nathan saying he has not decided if he should run another term and Tony Tan surfacing as a potential PAP sponsored candidate. This brings me to ponder over the selection process of a PAP sponsored candidate. Will it be similar to the Tea Party used to screen potential MPs for GE, where the candidates will go through some kind of interview before being offered to run? This would also imply that the final decision to field a candidate is decided by the PAP and not the candidate who says, ‘I want, I want.’ Or is it that a candidate first decide if he wants to run and then informs the PAP of his intent?

How would the few candidates fit into the PAP selection process or scheme of things? Presumably Tan Kin Lian and Tan Cheng Bock would not even be considered if they inform the PAP of their participation and hoping for the party’s support. What about George Yeo? Would he be considered a candidate for sponsorship?

If the PAP decides to sponsor George, and if Nathan also decides that he wants to run, and if Tony also comes into the picture, would we then have 3 PAP sponsored candidates to choose from? Or can the PAP say no to the candidates and only select one while the others can go and run as independent candidates like the two Tans? Interesting if both Nathan and Tony say yes and PAP says no to any one of them. It can also say no to George if he asks for the party’s sponsorship.

Then if they go ahead to run, they would then be running against the interests of the PAP or running against a PAP sponsored candidate? Now would that runs against the vein and ruffles a few feathers in the process?

The idiots are thinking very hard

5 idiots are in a business that is commission based. There are only 5 operators in the industry. Business has been bad because the main operator of the business has turned it into a gambling den instead of the real business it used to be, when genuine goods were exchanged. Now the business is all about toxic notes that were printed from thin air.

The 5 idiots could not figure out why the business is running out of steam. In desperation, given the 5 IQ they had, one is suggesting to cut commission to gain market share. This idiot could not see one centimetre ahead of him and could not think that if he lowers his commission, the other 4 idiots will also do so.

So when one idiot comes out with his brilliant plan, the next will follow with a betterer plan. They will keep the cycle of commission reduction going on and on, from 5c to 4c to 1c, to 0.1c and so on and on, as long as they think they can gain market share.

And they are congratulating themselves for being so idiotically brilliant.