A coalition of forces or an independent attack

When Nick Leeson tried to corner the Nikkei with the war chest of his bank, he believed that his bank was big enough to bank roll him against the small investors. He was successful initially as the rest of the investors were acting alone and lack the fire power to contest him. But when the stakes got too high, the Japanese investors got worried of his position. A crash of Nikkei could bring about a series of events that were difficult to control. The zaibatsu and the big guys gathered together to deal a deadly blow to this young turk acting alone. In unison, they took position against Leeson and the rest is history.

An almost similar picture happened during the Asian financial crisis when the big funds from the west formed an informal coalition to sell down the Hongkong market. HK stock exchange and its financial sector could be ruined if not stopped. The taipans, the HK Govt and the Chinese Govt got together with a bigger war chest to defend the onslaught and the victors were obvious. The western big funds took a rubbing and went back to lick their wounds.

In the local market we are seeing a smaller scale onslaught of a single stock, Olam International. The modus operandi is different. There is a report on the accounting and business practices of Olam put up by Muddy Waters to justify the sell down. The shorting of the stock has been going on for weeks. Olam is resisting and defending its management and business decisions. These have become side issues. The main thrust is the shorting of the stock in the market. At this point in time Olam appears to be losing ground as there is no let up in the selling.

It was reported that 12% of Olam scripts were on loan, probably to parties that were shorting the stocks. Who is going to win this battle of wits or is it a matter of war chest? Muddy Waters on its own could do just so much damage. Could it still be shorting and keep exposing itself to bigger position, alone? Or is it working in coalition with other parties to short down the stock?

At the other side, is Olam buying and supporting its stock value? If Olam is defending its position just by clarifying its management decisions and not buying back its stocks, it is going to be a losing proposition. And working alone to defend a stock without knowing how many parties are in cahoot with Muddy Waters to press down the value of Olam is not going to work.

What are the big funds here doing? Are they shorting the stocks as well or just standing on the sideline waiting to see what happens? How would the crash of Olam, if the shorting continues, affect the general well being of the stock market and the financial system?

The other issues to note, is Olam deserving to be sold down? If there are fraudulent practices, the fate of Olam is as good as sealed. If it is just a management decision, a fair practice, would any party think it is good to prevent a viable company from being destroyed by short sellers?

No one in the market is any wiser except the insiders. Are the local funds and big wigs willing to join force to defend Olam, if they could think of a reason? Or would the big shareholders of Olam get together to defend their investment? Or would they join force with the short sellers and sell down the stock in the quiet hoping to buy back with big profits at lower prices?

Who are the players, the short sellers in this game? In any situation of such a nature, the wolf pack or hyenas would often strike in unison, as a coalition, and the victim would be defenceless on its own. This is the precarious nature of the stock market when funds can move quickly, in tandem to cause destruction of stocks, stock markets or the financial system of a country, particularly the small ones. It is rare to have a repeat of the defence against Nick Leeson or the onslaught of the HKSE by the taipans and the Chinese Govt. Is it fair game, market forces?

Najib kenna stabbed in the back

Must give it to Najib for trying so hard to woo the non Malay voters for the coming GE. He has done many things that were tabooed before, offering concessions to other ethnic interests. I must say that some of the fence sitters were wavering and could be thinking of returning to the BN banner. And even Mahathir said the moment is ripe for a GE. But he qualified that with time down the road, things could change and will change if the election is not called soon.

Unfortunately he has spoken too early. There was a news yesterday that a Chinese hair dressing shop was issued a summon for cutting the hair of a male Chinese by a female Chinese hair dresser. This is the new ‘law’ that the govt is pulling out to impose its value and lifestyle on other ethnic groups. When they don’t do it or cannot do it, other ethnic groups would not be allowed to do so. There is a new ‘law’ that Muslim female hair dressers can only cut the hair of female Muslim customers and male to cut the hair of male customers. Now this is being imposed on the non Muslims.

This hidden and deep seated obsession to impose its religious ethos, values and life prohibitions is going to remind the other ethnic groups of more to come. Would it be extended to no pork, no alcohol, no movies and no whatsoever, no lion dance, no religious parades etc etc?

Did Najib know that this is being done and is undermining his friendly gestures and olive branch to the other ethnic groups? It is interesting to know how the other ethnic groups are thinking now. UMNO will never know the truth, and neither will Najib know the truth until the next GE result is announced.

PS: Just read the paper, Correction, the hair cut summon was issued by PAS in Kelantan and MCA is taking issue with. Still this is something the non Malay parties are very high about. They just did not know when and who is going to up the challenge to see who is more ultra.

11 year old selling CD to pay for eye surgery

I was won over by the bubbly nature of this precocious little girl when she performed at the President’s Charity Show. She was confident, intelligent and very mature for her age. It was so painful to see her living life without sight. She was born with opaque cornea and unable to see.

Yerterday TRE carried an article of adelyn Koh composing songs and selling her CDs to raise fund for her eye operation. It is going to cost her $40k per eye and a total of $80k for both eyes. I wish the hospital could have done it for her for $8. It would be so nice and I will willingly pay for it.

The richest country in the world with the most millionaires per capita, and there is this little girl being left to fend for herself, to raise money on her own, for the badly needed surgery. She had done 4 operations without success. It was reported that she has just operated on one eye and still trying to raise the balance to pay for the next eye.

Wonder how much we paid for the conjoint twins for the operation held here several years back. Is there an eye surgeon willing to do a little charity to charge her less, to give her sight, to live like a normal child? Would the govt….never mind.

Obama's potential opportunities for peace

Obama's potential opportunities for peace
Updated: 2012-11-23 21:30
By Han Dongping ( chinadaily.com.cn)

PART     TWO


It refused to respect the Asian people's desire for freedom from outside interference in their own affairs. More importantly, the role the US chose to play in Asia at the time was destructive rather than constructive, and divisive rather than unifying. It sought to divide in order to gain.

It seems that the Obama administration has not learned a lesson from the failures of past US administrations. It still plans to play a more destructive than constructive role. The rise of China has benefitted the Asian countries, particularly South East Asian Countries tremendously in recent years.

But the US sees the rise of China as a threat, and seeks to check China's rise. Right now, the US has tried to utilize the territorial disputes concerning the South China Sea to stir trouble in the region in order to further its own interests. Some of the countries in the region, driven by short term interests, have welcomed US involvement in these regional disputes. But these countries should be aware of the consequences of serving as someone else's pawn. It is easy to invite the devil into your house but much more difficult to remove him later.

The Asian Countries are beginning to play more significant roles in the world's economy. And this growth will only continue to increase if they learn to peacefully resolve their differences without outside involvement. More importantly, Asian countries should never forget the harm that outsiders have done to them in the past, and they should work hard together to avoid the circumstances in which the outsiders utilize Asian country as pawns for their own gain.

President Obama should not attempt to play a divisive role in Asia. The Asian people have seen enough American wars on their land, and Asian people are still recovering from the destruction American military operations have caused in Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan.

President Obama promised the American people change during his campaign in 2008. He received the Nobel Peace Prize because of his campaign rhetoric for peace. Instead, his policy of troop surges in Afghanistan disappointed many people both inside and outside the United States.

Yes, President Obama was elected for a second term, but in many ways, that was more on account of the fact that the alternative was far worse, rather than any real satisfaction with the job President Obama had done thus far.

The people in the US want you to be an agent for peace. The people in Asia and in the whole world want the US to be a peaceful and constructive force. Now is President Obama's opportunity to redeem himself and make good on his claims for peace.

The author is a Professor of Warren Wilson College in the US.

Obama's potential opportunities for peace

Obama's potential opportunities for peace
Updated: 2012-11-23 21:30
By Han Dongping ( chinadaily.com.cn)

PART     ONE

Obama's potential opportunities for peaceIn the wake of his successful reelection campaign, President Obama embarked on his trip to South East Asia to attend the Summit of the Association of South East Asian Nations held in Cambodia. Along the way, he visited Thailand, an important ally of the US and also became the first American president in history to visit Myanmar and Cambodia.

The Obama Administration has stated that a return to Asia would be the focus of its foreign policy for some time now. Most world media covering Obama's visit to South East Asia believe that this visit is a significant component of the Obama administration's foreign policy. A Washington Post commentary openly suggested that the objective of Obama's trip was to check China's growing influence in that part of the world.

For the past 60 years, the US has had a very troubled history in Asia and South East Asia. It started in supporting the unpopular nationalist government in the Chinese Civil War. After investing billions of dollars in the unpopular Jiang Family Regime, US foreign policy in China failed miserably when Jiang was kicked out of mainland China in 1949. In order to save its face and to provide a lifeline for the Jiang regime, the US involved itself in the Korean civil war and backed the unpopular and losing South Korean Regime under the mantle of the United Nations.

As the US-led UN forces crossed the 38th parallel and approached the Chinese border, the Chinese Government was forced to send volunteers to Korea in an effort to protect the integrity of its border. Outgunned, the Chinese volunteers, in collaboration with North Korean forces, pushed the US-led UN forces back to the 38th parallel where the civil war started, and forced the US to sign a cease fire. As a matter of fact, the cease fire still stands today in Korea, where the US still maintains close to one hundred military bases.

The US refused to learn its lesson from the Korean War, and soon got itself involved in the internal affairs of Vietnam. It first supported the French in its mission to reclaim its former colony after WWII. When the French were defeated by the North Vietnamese, the Americans took over where the French left off.

Starting from 1954, the US involvement in Vietnam gradually escalated, from sending military advisors to de facto war after falsely claiming that North Vietnam fired at American gunboats in 1964. The US dropped more bombs in Vietnam than all the warring parties combined during WWII, and after spending hundreds of billions of dollars and incurring hundreds of thousands casualties, it still could not have its way in Vietnam. In the end, the US had to leave Vietnam in disgrace and dishonor in 1975.

The US floundered in Asia in the past because of a combination of arrogance toward and ignorance of Asia and Asian people. At the time, it was overconfident from its victory in WWII, and its superpower position in the world with 75 percent of the world's gold, and 50 percent of world GDP.