PRC bus drivers acknowledge citizenship has privileges

The one day strike by the PRC drivers for SMRT buses caused a stir like a storm in a tea cup. It was greeted with cheers when it was announced. It was something that no one thought would happen in this peaceful and richest island in the world. It was more entertaining than anything else and with SMRT involved, gave it a more hilarious twist.

What was the issue for the strike. According to reports, the PRC drivers were unhappy that they were doing the same jobs as Malaysian drivers but were paid less. If this is factually correct, then management would have to answer for it. A word of caution, in such a situation, one must compare apple with apple. Is the nature of work similar? Are seniority and performance factors included? Are the PRC drivers being provided with free or subsidized accommodation that the Malaysian drivers were not? One has to take into account the whole compensation package and other relevant factors into consideration before making a judgement.

One interesting point raised by the PRC drivers is that they don’t mind being paid less than Sinkies, an acknowledgement that this is Sinkie country. And this point is relevant. Citizenship has its advantages. Otherwise might as well throw the piece of paper into the dustbin or flush it down the loo.

Sinkies must know that this is their country and they must not be treated otherwise, to be discriminated or disadvantage in their own countries by foreigners. Any thinking foreigner here must take note that this is Sinkeland and Sinkies must be the top dogs and not the other way. Is this the case? Are companies and organizations discriminating against Sinkies or treating Sinkies unfairly or favouring instead foreigners? I will faint if this is so. But looking at so many public comments praising foreigners, this could be the reality and daft Sinkies dumbly accept this situation as their fate.

Thank you PRC drivers, for reminding the Sinkies that this is their home, their country and they should be treated better than others.

Hidden soldier no move 按兵不动

This seems to be the strategy of the Workers party lately. Though there are many hot issues in the media and social media, in the Natcon, the WP apparently is no where to be seen or heard. I was getting a bit worried about the party and why they were not engaging the people in any way. I thought something untoward could have happened. The only thing I can think of is a deliberate strategy of not wanting to be in the news, play safe or play whatever you like, not to be in any controversy, just look after their constituencies, attend Parliament, and wait for the next GE while consolidating the party administration and position.

This ‘hidden soldier no move’ strategy is a strategy, but by not participating in any issue or conversation, it is kind of like a default to allow other parties to gain ground and presence, and some may even comment negatively that the Party is inactive.

In my view this is not necessarily a good strategy. A political party cannot be cut off from the people by disengaging, by not being involved in public issues, and by being silent. Maybe I am wrong and they have been talking and talking, except not being reported in the media. Whichever or whatever the reasons for this inactivity and reticent, it is not going to be good for the party. The SDP is apparently taking the initiative to champion the causes of the people which is something that the WP should be doing. SDP’s involvement is giving it a very high profile of being in the politics.

With its resources and the number of MPs elected and in Parliament, whatever its strategy, WP cannot afford not to engage and not to be seen and heard. They can’t be adopting this ‘Hidden soldier no move’ strategy for the next 4 years and to lose the ground and the goodwill it has gained since the last GE and by election. It may even become a negative point for the WP as an issue in the GE.

Let’s hope the WP is not facing any problem and thus unable to engage the people more actively and participate in national affairs in a more conspicuous way.

Singapore a model for China to fight corruption

In the latest CNA programme, Perspective, on China, the issue of corruption was thoroughly discussed by an eminent panel of professors that include Tommy Koh, Kishore Mabubani, a James Tang from SMU and a Huang Jing from the LKY School of Public Policy.

The most prominent point in the discussion came from Tommy Koh, that China would not be able to curb corruption like Singapore. He pointed out 3 factors that made Singapore’s fight against corruption a success. One, the rule of law, two, govt leaders that smell clean, and three, a ruthless regime to tackle corruption.

China’s rule of law is always found to be lacking. Did they have any law at all, or is their law fictional? Tommy also brought out the legend of Justice Bao of the Sung Dynasty who was the epitome of law and order many centuries ago. As for Chinese leaders to smell as clean as our leaders, this can only be done if they are paid millions instead of the being paid like impoverish peasants. With their kind of pay, it is just too tempting and natural to be corrupt. A low down Sinkie civil servant would likely be paid more than the President and Prime Minister of China. China should take this advice and pay their top leaders handsomely like Sin so that they would not be tempted to be corrupt. Singapore is the best model to adopt.

As for ruthlessness in tackling corruption, Chinese death penalty cannot be compared to the ruthlessness of the things Singapore had done? Sorry, I missed the points as to what were so ruthless in our regime that make the firing squad looks so tame. I also cannot recall anything that is more ruthless than the death penalty for corruption in Singapore. Or is it that death penalty is not ruthless enough?

I am not up to it intellectually or may not know the workings of our system to suggest what is best for China. I think what Tommy suggested make good sense. China must learn from us if they are thinking of eradicating corruption in the govt, to be corruption free like Sin City.

PG for court hearings

What is the case all about between Ng Boon Gay and Cecilia Sue? Is it a case about promiscuity or about corruption? So far the case is more about detailed sexual acts, explicit, implicit, lewd, perversion, and nearly everything there is to make an X rated movie sell. The corruption part seems to be less important and superficially treated. It is like a violent movie with all the gore and blood with little care to the plot.

I think the censorship board should be called in to snip some of the scenes from being published in the main media or people may think that it is an evening paper or some wanbao.

Should the media also be rated for certain news like PG, under 18, under 16 like in the cinemas or on TV?

My view is that this episode should receive a PG rating at least if reported in the media.

The stupidity of scrip lenders

The lending of shares to short sellers in the stock market was originally a scheme to facilitate error trading by investors. Short selling was also an offence in many stock markets or at least discouraged for obvious reasons. The encouragement by stock exchanges to facilitate scrip lending to sellers who short the market to make a quick profit for the right or wrong reasons is turning into a game of stupidity for the owners of scrips. It also makes the exchanges look just as silly.

Scrip owners or long term investors are encouraged to deposit their scrips or make them available for short term loans in return for a small fee that is nothing more than the prevailing interest rate. To earn such a pittance, the investors risk the value of stocks they are invested in to be driven down to ridiculous level and to suffer heavy losses.

The latest case of Olam International is a glaring example of how stupid this scheme has become and how silly the long term investors were made to look. They were actually helping the short sellers to destroy the value of their investments by lending them scrips to short sell. How could stock exchanges encourage such a scam is unbelieveable.

In a period of 6 months, from mid May to mid November 2012, the number of Olam scrips on loan increased from about 6% to 12%. In the same period, the price of Olam was down from around $2.20 to $$1.70. This is a loss of 50c or more than 20% of the value in May. If 100 million scrips were on loan, it amounts to a loss of $50m. How much could the owners of these 100m scrips get for lending the shares to the short sellers, $500k?

Is this so difficult arithmetic to understand that the scheme is so nonsensical and daft to the long term investors? Scrip lending only makes sense when it is in small numbers and does not affect the price of the shares aversely. It is useful to facilitate the smooth functioning of a stock market. When it is being abused, when it is used to destroy the value of a stocks, why would investors want to participate in such a scam to incur losses? Why would stock exchanges think that this is a good thing to encourage and to make it so convenient to borrow scrips in big amounts to destroy the value of stocks like in the case of Olam?

You don’t need to be a genius to work out the sums and to cry foul. The only people who could benefit from this scheme are the short sellers and long term investors who are also shorting the market to buy them back later. Obviously there are some long term investors with big holdings that would participate in such a scam. In the Olam case, the owner, the biggest holder of the stocks, is crying foul as a huge sum of money has been wiped out from the value of the stock. Olam International, as the major owner, cannot participate in such a scam as it would be questioned and may even be found guilt for insider trading or share manipulation. Other than Muddy Waters, who are the other best scrip lenders that are making a killing in this sell down? Unlikely to be Olam.

This can happen to Olam and any other stocks, the minority shareholders and the owners would be the ultimate losers. The manipulators would be laughing to the banks cause the stock exchanges allow it through the scrip lending scheme and short selling.