Sunday’s political trivials

Xi Jinping is expected to take over the leadership of China after the national Congress that is now in progress. There is a nice photo of him today in the Sunday Times, plus a few others in his team. In fact the ST has been introducing the Chinese leaders for the past weeks. A few distinct features can be drawn from the crop of Chinese leaders. These include thick black hair nicely combed and oiled, a white shirt and a govt issued casual zipped jacket on the outside.

According to ST’s China correspondent Grace Ng, these features have their specific meanings. Nicely oiled and combed hair signifies pragmatism, white shirt means rigid professionalism but tempered by a casual jacket probably meaning not too dogmatic and rather down to earth, a leader closely in touch with the ground. The whole package is simply a no nonsense and task oriented pragmatic leadership, nothing frivolous.

What is obvious is the thick black hair on the roof of these leaders. They must have taken the advice by LKY seriously, that leadership must be kept young and vibrant, not oldies that are stuck in the mud with their obsolescent ways of thinking and ideas. And they will maintain this profile throughout their 4 or 8 years in power. Quite a remarkable achievement, looking at Hu Jintao and Wen Jiabao and the whole team. They hardly age at all. Maybe the task is easy in a communist state. Maybe they think less hard or no need to work so hard and thus were able to keep their hair black in tact. I am really surprise that they could retain their youthfulness while carrying such huge responsibilities and load on their shoulders. Their hair only turned white after they left office. Jiang Zemin and Zhu Rongji were two good examples. Perhaps they lost all the privileges and the good life in office, no more free medical and goodies that came along while in high office.

Our leaders used to have some similar features, black hair and a suit of simple white shirt and pants. I am not sure if they have the same meaning as the Chinese leaders. Let me hazard a guess. Thick black hair signifies youth. White shirt and pants are often associated with pragmatism and even incorruptibility. These were the characteristics of our past leaders and today it is a different story.

Our political leaders entered politics young and with a nice black crop of hair. Heng Swee Kiat and the two generals are good examples. But within a few terms they would all turn grey or white, looking very wise and dignified. And they would stay that way till they are retired.

The white shirts have changed to something more casual and colourful. The favourite colour is pink or red. And designer jacket is often seen in Parliament. Oh, one more thing, our leaders are mostly nerdy looking in the sense that many put on glasses. The difference is that the glasses could be fashionably thick framed like celebrities. This could mean a more affluent society where life is more enjoyable, living life to the fullest. There is no govt issue jacket to come along.

The grey or white hair or no hair must be telling. Working too hard or thinking too hard to run this unique little island to be the best in the world. This must have taken its toll on their crowning glory. A little dyeing could help to retain that youthful look if they don’t mind trading the look of wisdom that came with grey and white, or the classic balding professori image.

I think the Chinese leaders are having a good deal, less stressful, and an easier job to handle. Or perhaps if they were given a chance to stay as long as they want in power, they would also look like our leaders, ageing wise men. I deliberately left out women as they are still young and beautiful.

Would China and Japan go to war over Diaoyu Islands?

This was the discussion topic that had seen several reruns on CNA’s Perspective programme hosted by Pek Lian. The participants were Tommy Koh and Lam Peng Er, the latter is likely to be a Singaporean too, Victor Gao from China and Takaaki Kojima from Japan.

The issue of Diaoyu/Senkaku is quite clear. The islands were seized from China under the Unequal Treaty of Shimonoseki in 1894 after China was defeated by Japan. They were war loots. The islands were supposed to be returned to China after Japan’s defeat in WW2. But the Americans was tasked to be the trustee, tried to return to Chiang Kai Shek, but he preferred the US to keep them in case he lost Taiwan to the Communists and had some where to run to. The US gave administrative control of the islands to Japan in 1972 after falling out with Communist China and the start of the Cold War.

In 1972, Zhou Enlai and Tanaka signed a communiqué agreeing to keep the status of the islands on hold, but also with Japan agreeing to abide by the post war treaties of Potsdam and Cairo. The sovereignty of the islands was thus kept in the back burner till it flared up again when Shintaro Ishihara hatched a scheme to buy it from another Japanese, thus sealing the fate of the islands as Japanese territories. China protested strongly against such a move.

On the pretext of easing tension, Japanese PM tried to con the Chinese with another sure win scheme, to nationalise the islands. Under both con jobs, the islands would be officially recognised as Japanese islands if they were executed. And China would have lost the islands by a fait accompli for not protesting.

The position of the two Singaporeans was simple enough. Please don’t go to war as it would hurt both countries. The neutral stance is understandable as they did not have any stakes to consider.

The Chinese position was also simple. The islands were Chinese territory and China would fight to keep them at all cost. China was willing to maintain status quo but Japan had pushed China to react and China would have to let the world know that these were undisputed Chinese islands. Not negotiable.

The Japanese position was also simple. It refused to acknowledge that the islands were seized from China and claimed that those were Japanese islands. And to further perpetuate its con job, even accused China for raising tension.

The Chinese would not fall victim to this con job. But Tommy Koh was conned all the way. He swallowed hook, line and sinker thrown out by the Japanese. He did not even want to dispute Japanese claim to the islands, and through his comments that was a settled issue.

And he tried to throw smoke to compare Germany and Japan’s remorse after the WW2 and urged both parties not to go to war. The official position of Germany and Japan, to acknowledge the war atrocities and aggression, was really a moot point and secondary in the discussion.

Tommy asked whether China would risk and waste resources and lives over a few pieces of worthless rocks. Or would Japan do likewise over these rocks. He forgot that China lost the islands to the Japanese and the Japanese was the illegal owner of Chinese islands.

Another point of naivety exposed in Tommy was his belief that the US did not want to see a war between Japan and China. Unbelieveable to think that he is a veteran in international relations! Yes, the US would not want to be involved in a direct war with China. An open conflict between Japan and China would be most welcomed. Whatever treaty it has with Japan, it would use it expediently to serve its selfish interest. It would be in a very advantageous position to calibrate its response, likely to start with lip service, then supply and sell more arms to Japan, and finally decide whether to commit arms and its military forces to the conflict, depending on the outcome of the war. The Chinese and Japanese would have to kill each other first before the Americans decide what to do, just like WW2. Let them cripple themselves, their economies, lives and resources. The Americans can march in as the victor at the closing chapters.

The island dispute is really about sovereignty, about national pride, about ownership. Why should China give up fighting for its own islands? Or why should Japan not return the islands to China without going to war?  Who is the net loser or gainer? Not going to war, China lost. Returning the islands to China, Japan did not lose anything and could lead to a real closure to WW2. Why would Japan want to risk going to war again with China by keeping a few worthless pieces of rocks, in the view of Tommy Koh, that it stole from China?

This is the real issue that would have to be settled between China and Japan now or later, not the apologies and gestures of remorse. Return the islands and everything would be back to square one and bringing about a full closure of Japanese aggression against China and the Chinese people. Is this so hard to understand? Why are the recalcitrant Japanese so persistent in holding on to war loots it took by forced and risking a war with China some time tomorrow? They are peaceful people? They started the war of aggression not only against China but the whole of East and Southeast Asia and against the US.

Sin is a great place for foreigners

'Olivier Desbarres, Barclays Capital’s Head of FX Strategy in Asia, is accused of going on a rampage outside his home and terrorizing workers early last month, The Times has reported.
In the video which has emerged online, a man that resembles the banker can be seen approaching the workers and screaming obscenities.

“I’m gonna go after you. I’m gonna burn your f**cking house down,” he shouts.

“You have no respect. You know what? You’re f**cking animals. Chinese f**cking animals… I have a life. I have a family. You break that, I will find your f**cking family. I can find it very easily – I’m a man with resources.”

Dressed in shorts and sandals, he is then seen grabbing up a large sheet of zinc panel and hurling it into the construction pit, narrowly missing two workers.'

I copy the above posted in TRE. I can only have great praises for this ex colonial master for putting the ‘Chinese f**king animals’ down in their proper place. And his bank, Barclays Capital has sacked him which is very unjust. He should be promoted to be the CEO. He has done the bank proud by standing up for his rights. And the low down workers deserved to be spat on for disturbing his peace.

Only in Sin could such ex colonial master relive their past glory and strut away with his ego intact. Their former subjects would take anything from them without protest. No wonder Sin is a top choice for foreigners.

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.