4/30/2013

6.9m, try feeling the weight



What is 6.9m going to be like in 2030? A 4 member family unit will mean 400,000 flats to house an increase of 1.6m people. This could mean two Tampines estates or equivalent land needed at least. And assuming 10% of these 400,000 households will be car owners that will be 40,000 cars on the road and more roads and parking spaces needed, and 40,000 more COEs.

If each household has a school going child, there will be 400,000 more school children running around, needing transport and schools. How many more polytechnic and university places are needed?

If each of these household is a two income family, 800,000 more jobs will need to be created.

If each family eat 4 eggs daily, 1.6m more eggs must be laid by the chickens, daily.

Just think about the consumables and multiply them by 1.6m, a lot more consumption will add on to the economic numbers.

And all this will be piled on to the already congested little islands we are living in.

Are these what we want, progress, growth, well being? Or it is all about congestion, inflation, competition, stress and strains, working and working and working for a little shoe box apartment? By then the size of flats will be determined by the hard realities around us, 6.9m will dictate your life and decide what kind of life you will be living.

Tomorrow is the Protest Rally at Hong Lim Park, 4pm. Will you be there?

Remisiers rushing to pass exam?



This is the big title, I mean printed in very very big fonts in the ST, of Goh Eng Yeow’s article about remisiers rushing to sit for an exam that probably will not be held again. The exam, called Module 6A, is needed if remisiers are to execute trades for their clients on Specified Investment Products, which also read as dangerous or highly complex products. This requirement came about after the Lehman bonds or toxic products sold and many investors got badly burnt. The MAS now wants to ensure that investors and remisiers are fully aware of the complexities of these products and the high risk that they are taking when trading in them.

So remisiers must pass this exam, to equip them with sophisticated knowledge of these products, and to be in a position ‘to advise their clients’ when trading these products. This advising role of remisiers, with the passing of the module, they would be more professional in executing such trades. And since both clients and remisiers are professionally qualified, they should bare the risk should things turn foul and don’t go and kpkb with the authorities. This is now not a case of willing buyer willing seller, but informed and professionally trained buyers and sellers, and with equally professionally qualified remisiers to make sure things are handled professionally. I am also not sure how would these changes make the trading of SIP products safer. But it must be a good step forward.

What I am puzzled is that if passing an exam on this module is essential to executing SIP products, shouldn’t the exam be held regularly, maybe once or twice a year, or is this the last time that such an exam will be held?

The other matter that is new to me is that most brokerages have central buyers that execute trades like foreign stocks for the clients of remisiers as part and parcel of the system. And there has never been an issue about the commissions going back to the remisiers. Why is it that should central buyers have to assist in the trading of SIP products, that the commission becomes an issue, who should the commission goes to? The general sharing formula is 60:40 or 55:45 in favour of the company with the remisiers bearing the bad debt risks. So, with SIP products, new commission sharing formulas were being floated with some brokerages hinting to taking the full commission for themselves or maybe a higher percentage than the 60%. And there is also a question of risk, who is going to bear the risk of bad debts?

Why shouldn’t the brokerages continue with the central buyer system to assist remisiers in the execution of SIP trades, incidentally trading foreign stocks in overseas bourses used to be classified as SIP for a while, and maintain the same commission sharing formula? The other point is that such trades, now mainly high risks derivatives and ETF products need well trained professionals who are dealing with such products on a full time basis to be able to provide the level of expertise to their clients.

Passing Module 6A and executing derivatives and SIP products as a part of the main business to me is grossly inadequate relative to the full time traders or central buyers handling such businesses. The highly complex products and the high risks expected would really need very much more care than just passing an exam. It is a full time thing, requiring a lot of expertise and attention and complex computations and monitoring of the movements of such products unlike stocks and shares. A little exception is the ETFs which are technically safer products as they are derived from a basket of blue chip stocks in a market. Of course some of these products could be designed differently and can be risky and complex as well.

Would the sitting and passing of Module 6A be a game changer that makes the risk in trading SIP products more bearable or the remisiers be more professional? More knowledgeable is not necessary the same as more professional. Would it be better for such trades to be done by the central buyers?

Is there really an issue in the apportioning of the commission? Would the business or income of remisiers who missed taking this exam be affected? How many clients are really active in trading SIP products? Would the livelihood of remisiers be affected if they did not sit for this exam?

Selfish Meritocracy – Goh Chok Tong



“We do not want a society whose citizens seek to advance their own interests without a care for others, or worse, at the expense of others. I call this ‘selfish meritocracy’. It is up to those of us who can, to reach back and help those behind to climb the ladder with us, and not to pull up the ladder behind us.”

“Those who have risen to the top owe the greatest responsibility to help the weaker in society. A ‘compassionate meritocracy’ can help us build a resilient and inclusive society. A ‘selfish meritocracy’ will divide us and ruin our society.” – Goh Chok Tong

What is Chok Tong saying? Why did Chok Tong make these remarks? Is he saying that some people are practicing selfish meritocracy? Or is this just a general comment, there is no such thing but just a warning that this can happen and should be avoided? The consequence is a divided and ruined society, he said.

Assuming that Chok Tong is acknowledging this problem, what is he or the Govt going to do about it? Would those that are advancing their own interests without a care for others be taken to task and the process be stopped? It must be as the consequence according to Chok Tong is a ruined society and surely he and the Govt would not want that to happen.

And there is this complaint by many concerned Singaporeans, by the retrenched or out of job PMETs, even by the MOM, that FOREIGNERS are practicing selfish meritocracy here with Singaporeans the silent victims, losing their high paying jobs to foreigners being brought in to replace them. Actually this is more than selfish meritocracy. It is a concerted effort to get rid of Singaporeans and replaced with their own kind and has nothing to do with meritocracy.

Can I say that there are now two problems, one, high achieving Singaporeans are practicing selfish meritocracy to benefit themselves at the expense of less able Singaporeans and the question is, why is this allowed to happen? And why allowed to happen if the Govt knows about it?

The second problem of FOREIGNERS practicing more than selfish meritocracy, intentional and preconceived acts to replace Singaporeans with their own kind is now being tackled by Tan Chuan Jin and the MOM. How much has been done and how effective were the measures taken to improve the lot of Singaporeans that fell victims to this is yet to show itself in a big way. How long will it take to get rid of FOREIGNERS guilty of this malpractice in our own country against our very own citizens? Or is the Govt adopting a gentle touch and hoping that things will improve, and how long will it take to improve? Would the jobless PMETs see their problems removed or would it be too late and they become history by the time something is done?

By not acting fast to tackle these problems is itself a form of selfish meritocracy. Let’s see whether Chok Tong can do something while he still can and what he said is not just lip service, spoken and forgotten, no longer his problem. He already said that those at the top have the greatest responsibility to curb such abuses. It could be his last generous and righteous act for the people who have supported him and placed their trust in him to make him the PM for so many years.

4/29/2013

China should learn from the USA


Xinjiang was hit by terrorists last Tuesday and 21 were killed by China’s security forces after the violent clash. As usual, though the US was under attack by terrorists in Boston, it attacked China for the way it handled the terrorist strike. A US spokesman, Patrick Ventrell, ‘called for a thorough and transparent investigation and expressed concern over discrimination against Uighurs and the practice of Islam.

I think the Americans have a point. The Chinese have very little experience in the handling of the minorities. China should seek the American’s help in how to deal with minorities’ uprisings against the authorities. The Americans were very successful in the uprising of the Red Indians and China should approach the Americans to learn how they decimated the Red Indian Uprising and brought peace to America. The second American success story is that after exterminating almost all the Red Indians, the Americans were very generous and compassionate in setting up reservations to protect the remaining few Red Indians that were still alive.

Actually the Red Indians were a majority but after the killings they became a minority in North America. China’s minorities, the Uighurs, are an historical minority and maybe there is no need to conduct a genocide to terminate them. China can skip this, just set up reservations and march the Uighurs into them to be protected. That would do the job like the Red Indians in the US.

China should send a high level delegation to the USA to seek advice on how this can be done efficiently and gain lasting peace in China. It is a great piece of American recipe that should be shared with countries around the world, in keeping the minorities under control and no more troubles from them forever. Make sure that only a few are left, too few to make any difference anymore.

One more thing, for those caught elsewhere, set up prisons in the model of Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo to lock them up without trial. If any western media or American senator or congressman is to question these prisons, just said they were recommended by the Americans. Ask them to go back and ask their Administration.

FT Myth 2

Hi all, the earlier Poll on this is behaving very weirdly and the numbers could not go up but keeps shrinking after every new high. It is now less than 20 respondents. I have sent a note to Bloggers to investigate and track why the Poll is behaving so badly. Hopefully they can reveal the problem facing this the earlier Poll.

I have created another similar Poll, FT Myth 2. Please vote again and see how this Poll will behave this time. Also, After you voted, please use the 'comment' in this post to indicate A for the first choice and B for the second choice to allow me to do a tally on the fictitious missing numbers. Just an A or B will do.

Thanks for your assistance.

Redbean