How to make a daft Sinkie fart without thinking?

Is it superflous to even think that a daft Sinkie has the ability to think? It is very common to hear how daft sinkies parroted views or positions from the establishment repeatedly without knowing what they were farting about. Many don’t even know that what they were saying was actually planted into their pea brain without them knowing. It is all a case of repeating a position and after a while the lazy or mindless will just garble them out as the truth or the logical answer to a situation.

Take the example of the slightly better off middle class and their entitlement for admission into govt hospitals. The official position is that the lower class wards were highly subsidised and the better off should not enjoy the subsidies in the lower classes as they are better off. So they must opt for more expensive classes to spend their savings away. The daft Sinkies were told that if these better off people were to opt for lower class wards, they would be competing for the limited beds in these classes.

Very logical on first pass. Think again, why are these people opting for lower class wards and willing to go through the ordeal with less niceties and comfort? And why should the lower class wards be limited and not increase to cater for everyone who cannot afford to pay for luxury? Just because someone is earning a little more, he must be able to pay more and consume more, and his savings must be robbed. Many could have other financial responsibilities or commitments that they do not have the comfort of squandering their limited resources to enjoy a little luxury.

But the daft Sinkies could only think, sorry I shouldn’t use the word think, they can’t, they could only parrot that these people are depriving the poorer folks from the beds available in the lower class wards.

The same daft Sinkies would say the same thing about Sinkies who earn more than the arbitrary $12k imposed by HDB to disqualify them from buying HDB flats. HDB flats are for poorer Sinkies. The richer Sinkies must not compete with poorer sinkies for public flats.

In the first place the HDB flats are no longer cheap unless they are saying $500k or $800k is cheap. Surely $1.7m is not cheap. How many people earning a combined income of $12k can afford to buy a $1.7m public flats?

The second point, who are the people competing for public flats with the poorer Sinkies? Have they ever heard of new citizens? How many new citizens have been printed to join the queue for public flats, competing with poorer Sinkies? And because they were foreigners before, many could have been very much richer than the Sinkies disqualified from buying public flats.

Then there are the PRs in the resale market, pushing resale price to the roof, competing with the outcasts or mistreated Sinkies who happened to earn more than $12k in household income. These victimised Sinkies, not allowed to buy public flats are now forced to compete with PRs to buy resale flats. Many are young professionals who have no choice but forced by the govt to cough out all their savings to buy public flats or private properties against their interest, against the wisdom of being prudent and saving for a rainy day. And daft Sinkies would say where got forced?

Why should foreigners turned citizens be allowed to compete with poorer Sinkies and Sinkies not allowed to do so. And why should such a scenario happen when the govt could simply build to satisfy the needs of its citizens? No, the daft Sinkies could not see further than the tip of their noses. No, maybe they are just acting daft, paid to sing a song, or have vested interested to sing the song, against the interests of fellow Sinkies. Really, how many Sinkies are earning above $12k and still needed to buy HDB compares to the influx of new citizens competing with the poorer Sinkies?

Even the Angmohs are crying foul!

Finally the angmohs also cannot take it anymore and are crying foul. High frequency trading is no angel. And for all the goods they claimed to bring, they are really hogwash. High frequency trading is causing more harm and bringing nothing good to the stock markets around the world. They are the destroyers of stock markets and values of stocks. Many markets are appearing healthy with good volumes but in reality fictitious. Don’t believe anyone claiming that volumes are increasing because of high speed trading. It is a lie.

Kent Rossiter, head of regional Asia Pacific trading at RCM said, ‘You can look at the trading volumes and see it does a million shares a day. In reality, of the million shares you’re seeing, there’s not really a million shares out there for you to take, there’s probably 600k or 700k.’ I think he is too conservative. For a million trades done, very likely 80% are done by high frequency trading without any change of ownership, and creating a false market.

High speed trading doesn’t help liquidity: Fund Managers. This is the heading in an article in the ST today. The Bloomberg article said, ‘The benefits of high frequency trading in Asia are illusory and the strategies drive up costs, according to regional trading heads from JP Morgan Chase, Allianz Global Investors and Fidelity Worldwide Investment.’ It also reported that ‘the govts of HongKong, Singapore and Australia are considering the extent to which high frequency trading and other electronic strategies should be regulated’. They should not be regulated. They should be banned from any stock market.

The false claims that high frequency trading will provide liquidity, facilitate trades, market maker, and reducing cost are all bull. How could Asian govts be conned by such superficial claims when the damage of high frequency tradings have been the ire in US and Europe? The only clever govt is Singapore. In the last SGX AGM, when questioned, the management replied that they have not allowed high speed trading into the exchange. Thank God that this is true. I believe they are telling the truth.

High speed trading is violating all the rules and by laws of any stock exchange. It is unfair trading, cheating to be plain, when they are allowed to plug their computers into stock exchange system to monitor other trades and allowing their computers to initiate the best buy or sell to make a profit. As such they have emptied the pockets of many innocent traders and investors, including the funds and their clients.

Among the violations of high frequency trading are, churning, buying and selling with no change in ownership, cornering stocks or the market, creating a false market and unfair trading. No responsible stock market must allow such violations of their rules and by laws to go on, or they are simply accomplices to a crime.

The state of stock markets in the world is so bad that many are looking good superficially but are really in the intensive care wards. Like what George Yeo said, anything may look perfect on the outside, but don’t be deceived.

Govts across the world must not be deceived by high speed traders. They are not innocent and naïve little kids that brought their expensive computers to help a stock exchange to be market makers, to generate liquidity. The truth, they are out there to mop up everything in the market by unfair means. Responsible govts must stop the carnage caused by high speed trading and save their stock markets.

Calling the thinkers for Natcon

My earlier post calling for the elite to step forward to share their brilliant minds for the good of the nation is likely to prove in vain. Who am I to make such a call but a noise in the wilderness of insanity. I am pleasantly surprised to read in the media that Ngiam Tong Dow has stepped up to the podium to make the same call. This time he was addressing the academia, the place called Ivory Tower, where brains are made of ivory unlike the peasants that are made of mud. Ngiam is inviting the intellectuals, the thinkers, huddling in their Ivory Tower to speak up, to share their precious wisdom and knowledge with the govt for a better future for all citizens.

Then I was slammed right in the face by the comments coming out of the Ivory Tower. Read these words very very carefully. I am quoting them from the Today paper. Eugene Tan, the SMU law professor, ‘cited the fear factor as a possible deterrent for academics to speak out.’ My eyeballs are rolling. Eugene also said, ‘some senior faculty “frown upon their colleagues being involved”, …They regard such involvement as purely non academic and not in keeping with the academic norms.”’

A Taiwan born analyst at NUS, Lee Der Horng said, ‘he found it strange that compared to other countries, academics here are not necessarily thought leaders, who drive discussion on public issues.’ Think he is right. Ours are text book academics whose views and interests are confined to the four walls of academia.

Can anyone wonder why protest or demonstrations on social and political issues are often led by students and notby the thinkers in the academia? But could the thinkers see that the Natcon is different, that the govt is extending an invitation to all Sinkies to speak out and tell the govt what they want for the future of Sin? If the academics are shrouded with fear from opening their gold gilded minds, the govt would have no choice but to ask the uncles and aunties in the market and hawker stalls what they would like Sin to be. And what the uncles and aunties decided, the Ivory Tower academics would have to live with it, if they don’t open their golden mouths. Or is it that the academia is filled with foreigners and they rather not be involved in local politics?

Rogues in Malaysia medical practice

The message below was e-mailed to me by a friend.

         Subject: Fw: Rogues in Malaysian medical practice


                Beware of Errant and Unethical Doctors! Please read

"Dear friends,

I am a general surgeon in private practice in Kuala Lumpur. I would like to bring to the attention of the public the unethical practices of some doctors in private practice.

An 8-year-old boy was brought to see me by his father after suffering from fever, cough and vomiting for 1 day. He DID NOT HAVE ANY ABDOMINAL PAIN. He was initially seen by a general practitioner who insisted that the father bring him to see 'Surgeon G' at a specific private medical centre in Kuala Lumpur. The father at first refused and had wanted to bring his son to the medical centre where he was born but relented when the medical practitioner said that 'Surgeon G' will order some blood tests and will send his son home with some medications.

However, when he brought his son to see 'Surgeon G', the surgeon examined his son's abdomen and pressed so hard that he elicited pain. Then the surgeon told the father that the son had a perforated appendix and insisted that he be operated the same night. The father was baffled because his son did not have any abdominal pain prior to that excruciating examination but he reluctantly agreed upon insistence by the surgeon. About 1 hour prior to the surgery, the father suspected that something was not right and he asked for his son to be discharged. He then brought his son to see me.

The first thing I noticed was that the boy had a slight cough but he was very active. His father told him to jump to prove that he did not have any abdominal pain, which he did with great enthusiasm. After a thorough examination, I was convinced that the boy did not have appendicitis and definitely not a perforated one. I treated him symptomatically for upper respiratory tract infection and sent him home with some medications. The father was outraged with what happened to his son earlier but he was relieved that his son was saved from an unnecessary surgery. Professionally, I could not! tell him that 'Surgeon G' may have tried to cheat him but, in my heart, I knew that was the case because I knew 'Surgeon G' very well and had inherited a few of his patients whom he operated upon and had botched the surgeries.

The next day, 'Surgeon G' called me and asked what happened to the patient. I told him I was certain that the boy did not have a perforated appendix but he insisted that the boy was very sick and had rigors (severe shivering) when he first saw him. Surgeon G said the boy improved tremendously after one dose of antibiotics. In my years of practice, I have not come across one case where one dose of antibiotics can cure a case of perforated appendicitis. IT IS JUST NOT POSSIBLE! He also said that the boy's father was a liar and had lied about his son not having any abdominal pain. Well, dear readers, I am a parent too. No father will lie about his son's health because he would have wanted the best treatment for his son.

I suspect 'Surgeon G' is giving kickbacks to many general practitioners to send patients to him to operate. In return, he would pay these general practitioners for each patient referred to him. He would cooperate with the general practitioners to convince the patients that they need urgent surgery.  I have personally worked with 'Surgeon G' and I know that his skills are questionable. He told me once that it is alright for a patient to have a recurrent disease as a result of his incomplete surgery because he would then refer the patient to another surgeon to tackle the problem. He had caused one death from a thyroid operation and at least 2 cases of complications after gallbladder surgeries which he refused to admit fault. In his clinic he has medical books with pictures of dangerous diseases which he uses to scare his patients into accepting surgery.

I am writing this to alert the public that there are doctors who are out for money only and are unethical in their practices. It breaks my heart that there are such individuals practicing freely and fleecing off unsuspecting and vulnerable patients and giving this noble profession a bad name. The only defense patients have is to be knowledgeable about their own illnesses and not be afraid to ask questions. All patients have to right to a second opinion and no doctors should coerce their patients to accept treatment against their will. The only consolation I have is that most doctors, both in public and private practice, are still ethical and are sincere in helping their patients.

Please circulate this article to your friends and loved ones and lets hope no one will suffer in the hands of surgeons like 'Surgeon G'. Also, beware of the general practitioner who insists that you see a particular specialist in a particular hospital because he could be working hand-in-hand with that doctor.
                                                         

Thank you." 

 

The above message is an eye opener that we all must be aware that there are medical crooks all over the world includining Singpore so we have to be very careful when seeing doctors whether GPs or surgeons or specialists.

The flexible pricing formula for HDB flats

The clearest picture of what formula was used in HDB pricing was revealed by LKY last Sunday. It was at cost or cost minus. Though it was a general statement, let’s presume that it was construction cost plus a little land cost as the land originally acquired was at minimal cost under the Land Acquisition Act.

So the original formula is likely to be Price = Construction Cost.

Though it was not discussed, it was likely that after a while the Price was slightly adjusted to provide some profits for HDB. Thus the formula would be Price = Construction + profit.

I use a small p for profit as the profit then was really not much to talk about.

Then someone got an awakening. The CPF holders have a lot of money in their savings. They can afford to pay a more for their flats. Then I think the formula was changed to Price = Construction Cost + Profit.

I am now using a bigger P to equate a bigger profit being built into the price.

This went on for a while till someone got another enlightenment, like being struck by a bolt of wisdom, and the formula was changed to Price = Subsidised Market Price. There was no need for the big P any more. It was hidden in the Market Price.

Then more angry noises were heard and the formula was modified and explained in different ways. It was changed to Price = Resale Market Price with Subsidy.

Then more noises and anger. So the factor of Affordability crept in as many claimed that it was getting unaffordable. So the formula was modified to become Price = Resale Market Price with Subsidy subject to 30% of two incomes for 20 years and instantly it became affordable.

As price kept going up, the formula was revised to Price = Resale Market Price with Subsidy subject to 30% of household income for 20 years. More members can now contribute to make the price more affordable.

Again the price went higher and the formula was again revised to become Price = Resale Market Price with Subsidy subject to 30% of household income for 30 years. See, still very affordable. It was all over the media with the Housing Minister having his special pages to drum this affordability idea into daft Sinkies.

But this was not the end. The formula was again revised to become Price = Resale Market Price with Subsidy subject to 30% of household income for 40/45 years. 30 years simply were not sustainable.

This may not be the last change as the price is still going up. It is likely that the formula will be revised again and likely to be Price = Resale Market Price with Subsidy subject to 30% of household income for 60 years or 100 years.

Does anyone realize that the Cost factor has been missing since Price was changed to Subsidised Market Price? Yes, Cost is no longer a factor in the issue of pricing HDB flat prices. The price of future HDB flats will not be determined by Cost but by the 30% of household income and how long they allow the buyer to repay. It also means that the price of HDB flats, regardless of Cost, can keep going up as long as the salary goes up and the repayment period is extended.

This is called flexible pricing, or rubber band pricing, like luxury goods. It can go as high as the seller so wishes as long as it keeps to the 30% benchmark plus plus. The first plus is the household income. The second plus is the number of years for repayment which is inversely proportional to the Price. The longer the number of years taken, the higher can the price go up. The formula can thus be written as Price = Resale Market Price(with market subsidy) Plus Plus.