The Americans received the biggest shock of the century when its Treasury Bills were downgraded to AA from AAA. How could this happen to the world’s number One superpower? They are now on a witchhunt on how they arrived at the present dire state. Obama is the natural strawman for the occasion. It is his fault. Soon they may even claim that if they only had a white president and things would not have gone this way.
Actually the US went on a self destruct mode the moment George Bush Jr took over the Presidency. For an executive president, not a ceremonial one that cannot speak as he likes, you really need someone with a little brain. That is not the only flaw of the American system.
Our local media has an article in the Sunday Times which, if one reads carefully, is saying that a one party system is the way to go. The problems leading to the US downgrade are a result of the bickering and indecisiveness of a two party system. Thank god we have a very decisive one party system that will just do it without the need to answer to another party in Parliament. The govt of a one party system can even afford to be deaf.
America was actually controlled by a small group of oligarchs or power brokers, mostly in the finance and arms industry. The former wanted a free and deregulated financial system to do as they pleased. The latter just know how to make wars. To them making wars is the only profitable business. While those in finance got their way to plunder the financial system, the latter twisted the hands of all politicians to wage wars after wars, for their own self serving interests. They enriched themselves by paying themselves crazy from the war industries, just like those in finance.
And America dips deeper and deeper into debt. And many silly American boys and girls would have to pay with their lives, not counting the number of ‘enemies’ killed in the wars. And many would go into debt, lost their fortunes, and inherit a country that is technically bankrupt.
The fall of the American Empire is not the multi party system or Obama, but a system that is corrupted by greed and the losing of a moral compass. In reality, all systems, no matter how good or how bad, will end up this way in their dying days. Corruption will be so rampant that it is no longer recognisable. Corruption comes in all forms and in all areas, the worst, other than amassing wealth till they look silly, is the corruption of power and the political system. When corruption is the norm, and being justified by all kinds of self serving logics, you know that the end is near.
One party system, multi party system, dictatorship, communism, monarchy, all will end with the same fate, with the same set of problems, all because of human greed. No system can survive the greed of man, no matter how good the system was when it was first formulated. All systems will end up with systemic rot, with the smell of human stench.
Countries that are still relying on the American model to operate their financial system need to think triply hard. As an example, they have allowed their stock market to function not on fundamentals but on how fast another machine can be to make a quick profit. The old school of investing on fundamentals is totally irrelevant against a bunch of crunching machines that trade on speed and algorithm of odds, with complete disregard to value and fundamentals. This is not stock trading anymore. It has ruined the American stock exchange and it will ruin the rest if they are so blind to embrace them without thinking of the harm that it can cause.
8/08/2011
8/07/2011
A few good dinosaurs
The news of the three $1b dinosaurs has subsided. I think they should be on the way here, nicely packaged to be the biggest attraction on the island, to create the wows and draw in the tourists dollars. If I recalled, the three were a family, or at least from the same specie, two adults and a smaller one.
My main concern then was a place to exhibit them. Think they said they needed a museum or mausoleum that is going to cost a few hundred million, befitting of the size and importance of the three relics. Yes, they will link the new Singaporeans to the past, that we were once living with dinosaurs. There is another moral aspect to these exhibits. No matter how predominant the dinosaurs were in their heydays, they too will become dinosaurs, or relics of the past.
I was suggesting that the dinosaurs be placed on a floating platform in the Marina Bay to save on space. We can’t afford to use up so much space for some relics of the past, no matter how relevant they are to our history. Every inch of land in the island is worth more than its value in gold. We could build more top end structures for sale and earn more dollars, as long as they are not greenbacks.
It just dawns on me that there is an alternative place for the dinosaurs. If only the architects could incorporate the mausoleum into the Istana Park would be great. Keep the park as it is plus the three dinosaurs without wasting more valuable land. The Istana Park should be big enough for the three. To locate them anywhere else would be a waste of land.
And to think of how important the three dinosaurs are to our history, it will not be befitting to locate them somewhere in the wilderness of Jurong or Woodlands or Tekong. There is always a solution to all problems, especially when the mind is fully relaxed on a Sunday morning.
My main concern then was a place to exhibit them. Think they said they needed a museum or mausoleum that is going to cost a few hundred million, befitting of the size and importance of the three relics. Yes, they will link the new Singaporeans to the past, that we were once living with dinosaurs. There is another moral aspect to these exhibits. No matter how predominant the dinosaurs were in their heydays, they too will become dinosaurs, or relics of the past.
I was suggesting that the dinosaurs be placed on a floating platform in the Marina Bay to save on space. We can’t afford to use up so much space for some relics of the past, no matter how relevant they are to our history. Every inch of land in the island is worth more than its value in gold. We could build more top end structures for sale and earn more dollars, as long as they are not greenbacks.
It just dawns on me that there is an alternative place for the dinosaurs. If only the architects could incorporate the mausoleum into the Istana Park would be great. Keep the park as it is plus the three dinosaurs without wasting more valuable land. The Istana Park should be big enough for the three. To locate them anywhere else would be a waste of land.
And to think of how important the three dinosaurs are to our history, it will not be befitting to locate them somewhere in the wilderness of Jurong or Woodlands or Tekong. There is always a solution to all problems, especially when the mind is fully relaxed on a Sunday morning.
The changing ethos of govt officers
The story of a permanent secretary driving around in his old 1.6 Japanese jalopy was legendary. Those were the days of thrift and leading by example. I remember a govt link company CEO was only comfortable with a 2000cc Mercedes Benz. Anything above was seen as flaunting and undesirable. A GM actually got a bollocking when he ordered a 3 litre limousine. That was seen as unbecoming. Thrift and propriety were important values to observe.
The ethos today is quite different. Not only is a 3 litre limousine common, some even flashed around in Lamborghinis and Ferraris. These are things that were frown upon in the good old days. I am not complaining as we have climbed the ladder of economic prosperity and what is a 3 litre car? It is time to enjoy our hard work and our success. Who would dare to announce a $50k cooking class in Paris then?
The ethos of new is to be who you really are. We need to announce that we have arrived. Perhaps it is also a dignity issue. In those days, a permanent secretary’s title is enough dignity to carry a long way. There is no need to show the pay slip and the number of zeros behind. Respect was more easily achieved and earned, and was real. Today, you need to be a billionaire to be respectable, or at least earn a million a year. Just flash it in the face of whoever and there will be instant recognition.
The ethos of the day is always set by the leaders. Monkeys see, monkeys do. Good example and exemplary behaviour at the top will be carried downwards. When the top is senget, you bet the bottom will be too.
The ethos today is quite different. Not only is a 3 litre limousine common, some even flashed around in Lamborghinis and Ferraris. These are things that were frown upon in the good old days. I am not complaining as we have climbed the ladder of economic prosperity and what is a 3 litre car? It is time to enjoy our hard work and our success. Who would dare to announce a $50k cooking class in Paris then?
The ethos of new is to be who you really are. We need to announce that we have arrived. Perhaps it is also a dignity issue. In those days, a permanent secretary’s title is enough dignity to carry a long way. There is no need to show the pay slip and the number of zeros behind. Respect was more easily achieved and earned, and was real. Today, you need to be a billionaire to be respectable, or at least earn a million a year. Just flash it in the face of whoever and there will be instant recognition.
The ethos of the day is always set by the leaders. Monkeys see, monkeys do. Good example and exemplary behaviour at the top will be carried downwards. When the top is senget, you bet the bottom will be too.
8/06/2011
I dunno what to say
In a high power forum chaired my Professor Tommy Koh, and with two key speakers in Law Minister K Shanmugam and Professor Thio Li Ann, the Law Minister repeated his position that the Elected President is not to be heard, or cannot express any views unless approved by the Govt. He said, ‘It is quite clear the president has no such power and that was not the role that was envisaged for the president.’ ‘The president,’ he added, ‘can speak on issues only as authorised by the Cabinet; and he must follow the advice of the Cabinet in the discharge of his duties.’
The only time the president can wield some influence on the PM is if he is on good terms with him, or if the PM finds him amiable and willing to listen to him. It is not the other way, that you have a president and the PM try to be nice to him and listen to him. Thus, a President that is pally pally with the govt is in a better position to be listened to by the govt. So the people should know who to vote if they want a president that can have influence on the govt.
What if the people want a president that does not need to be nice to the PM or the govt and want him to be firm and be ready to say no to the govt, should they then vote for someone that is more distant from the govt? To influence the govt or to check on the govt are two distinct roles that require quite a different character in the president.
But my main point is not all of these as they are immaterial. In more probability the president will have nothing of crisis level to do and spend his time writing his memoirs or raising funds for the disabled or shaking hands and waving at the crowd during NDP. Occasionally he may try to visit other countries to improve relations and trade. I am not sure that this is part of his portfolio, or if he is being advised by the govt to do so. Or maybe he is trying to give the Trade Minister a helping hand since he is not allowed to talk freely.
For such a role, do we need a president that should be as good as a permanent secretary, a chief justice material, or someone who manages a $100m paid up capital country when the PM and his ministers need not be that highly qualified? A butcher or a gardener can also be our PM under our constitution. And this must be the best part, the gardener PM is going to advise this high power president what to say and do. Does the country really need to pay him so many millions to perform such a role?
What is needed perhaps is a person of good conduct, dignified, good looking and respectable, and be given an honourarium of $500k per annum max. Of course a little commonsense and a tertiary education should be good enough as he would be advised by the Presidential Council and also the govt on what to do and what to say. No need to sweat the small stuff to find a super super talent and to pay him obscenely for the nature of the job. He may end up more dignified than the gardener PM who is going to tell him what to do.
Please feel free to disagree with me. If you don’t I will like to recommend some of the better and dignified looking Media Corp actors for the job. I am sure the people will love to shake their hands and feel good when they looked good standing side by side with kings and queens.
The only time the president can wield some influence on the PM is if he is on good terms with him, or if the PM finds him amiable and willing to listen to him. It is not the other way, that you have a president and the PM try to be nice to him and listen to him. Thus, a President that is pally pally with the govt is in a better position to be listened to by the govt. So the people should know who to vote if they want a president that can have influence on the govt.
What if the people want a president that does not need to be nice to the PM or the govt and want him to be firm and be ready to say no to the govt, should they then vote for someone that is more distant from the govt? To influence the govt or to check on the govt are two distinct roles that require quite a different character in the president.
But my main point is not all of these as they are immaterial. In more probability the president will have nothing of crisis level to do and spend his time writing his memoirs or raising funds for the disabled or shaking hands and waving at the crowd during NDP. Occasionally he may try to visit other countries to improve relations and trade. I am not sure that this is part of his portfolio, or if he is being advised by the govt to do so. Or maybe he is trying to give the Trade Minister a helping hand since he is not allowed to talk freely.
For such a role, do we need a president that should be as good as a permanent secretary, a chief justice material, or someone who manages a $100m paid up capital country when the PM and his ministers need not be that highly qualified? A butcher or a gardener can also be our PM under our constitution. And this must be the best part, the gardener PM is going to advise this high power president what to say and do. Does the country really need to pay him so many millions to perform such a role?
What is needed perhaps is a person of good conduct, dignified, good looking and respectable, and be given an honourarium of $500k per annum max. Of course a little commonsense and a tertiary education should be good enough as he would be advised by the Presidential Council and also the govt on what to do and what to say. No need to sweat the small stuff to find a super super talent and to pay him obscenely for the nature of the job. He may end up more dignified than the gardener PM who is going to tell him what to do.
Please feel free to disagree with me. If you don’t I will like to recommend some of the better and dignified looking Media Corp actors for the job. I am sure the people will love to shake their hands and feel good when they looked good standing side by side with kings and queens.
So a fare hike of 1% instead of 2.8%
Rejoice, celebrate, the unhappiness of the people has been heard. The PTC must have taken heed of the general unhappiness of the people over the rising cost of living and came out with a smaller increase for public transport fare. A 2c increase per trip is negligible and well absorbed, may even be unnoticeable. There are still complaints. People are still unhappy.
The PTC quoted the profits of other private companies including non transport operators, to justify the increase. Other organisation’s profits ranged from 3 to 14.9%. These include companies like Hongkong’s Transport International and MTR, London’s Stagecoach Group. SembCorp Industries and Singpost. And the profits of SBS and SMRT were 7.8 to 11.2%, very reasonable and within the spread of the companies quoted.
There is no point trying to go into the details of the little data provided. For those who are sceptical, doubts on the credibility and relevance of the data are glaring. I could quote more transport companies and non transport companies running at a loss to justify that it is ok to run public transport companies at a loss or with little profit.
What is still seen as wrong or unacceptable with the minimal increase? What is 2c when people are earning millions? The issue here is the principle of public transport and how this is treated as any other organisation whose interest is profit. And the operators deserved to be making profits like any other organisation.
Is public transportation with the privileges of a monopoly attached, to operate without competition, any other organisation? A govt run public transport monopoly is a govt monopoly under any colour or stripe. And a public transport system is an essential service and should not quickly be swept away as any other business for profit.
Why is the govt so obsessed with the public transport companies making profit as its major concern to shareholders, and coming out to defend its right to such profits? Why is the govt so persistent in proclaiming that the govt officers are daft and unable to run a public transport system if it is returned as a stats board? It is unbelieveable that any govt would say such a darn thing, that they could not run a transport service unless it is run privately. What a profound statement to acknowledge an inadequacy in a govt filled with top talents. I just dunno what to say.
The PTC quoted the profits of other private companies including non transport operators, to justify the increase. Other organisation’s profits ranged from 3 to 14.9%. These include companies like Hongkong’s Transport International and MTR, London’s Stagecoach Group. SembCorp Industries and Singpost. And the profits of SBS and SMRT were 7.8 to 11.2%, very reasonable and within the spread of the companies quoted.
There is no point trying to go into the details of the little data provided. For those who are sceptical, doubts on the credibility and relevance of the data are glaring. I could quote more transport companies and non transport companies running at a loss to justify that it is ok to run public transport companies at a loss or with little profit.
What is still seen as wrong or unacceptable with the minimal increase? What is 2c when people are earning millions? The issue here is the principle of public transport and how this is treated as any other organisation whose interest is profit. And the operators deserved to be making profits like any other organisation.
Is public transportation with the privileges of a monopoly attached, to operate without competition, any other organisation? A govt run public transport monopoly is a govt monopoly under any colour or stripe. And a public transport system is an essential service and should not quickly be swept away as any other business for profit.
Why is the govt so obsessed with the public transport companies making profit as its major concern to shareholders, and coming out to defend its right to such profits? Why is the govt so persistent in proclaiming that the govt officers are daft and unable to run a public transport system if it is returned as a stats board? It is unbelieveable that any govt would say such a darn thing, that they could not run a transport service unless it is run privately. What a profound statement to acknowledge an inadequacy in a govt filled with top talents. I just dunno what to say.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)