From irrational exuberance to irrational despair

The downgrading of local banks by Moody’s has elicited a strong rebuttal from MAS. MAS disagrees with the conclusion and offers a list of reasons to support its position. Our banks are financially sound with good asset backings and strong capital reserves. We also have strong regulations that are above what others are doing. The banks are regularly put under stress tests to ensure that they can hold their grounds when a financial crisis struck. So far the stress tests are showing good results.

As for the exposure to the high property prices and debt ratio, the Govt has implemented 8 measures to prevent a bubble forming. So there is no fear of a bubble bursting as there is no bubble at all. This part everyone must believe. All in, our banking and financial systems are rock solid. Would a huge pull out of funds affect our financial market? The answer is likely to be no even though the whole financial market is linked up to the whole world and when one market is affected the dominoe effect will bring the rest along.

I believe the arguments of the MAS are very sound and the people need not fear about what is going to happen to the world financial system and the contagion effect. But there is one possibility that we should not over look. A false and vicious domestic rumour may create a climate of irrational fear and lead to panic selling of assets. If that happens, it could be like a run on the banks and the result can be equally disastrous. The interconnectivity of today’s world has changed the dynamics of the financial markets. And the big funds and hedge funds will be there to do the damage and to profit from the stampede. We have seen how a single piece of news anywhere in the world can be used to push up the stock market or to crash a market.

Beware of the compounded effect of irrational fear, panic and the bull dozing of big funds to wreck the financial system irrespective of how solid it appears to be, or truly solid as a rock. Remember, we are just a little red dot in a stormy sea.

Vivian’s air tight case on honesty and integrity

The hawker centre cleaning issue just refuses to go away. It is quite bizarre that a small administrative misunderstanding could end up as an issue of honesty and integrity in Parliament. With all the information now on the table, I believe the issue is now pretty clear to even the Ah Peks and Ah Mahs in the market place. Let me try to summarise the case and where it is at the moment.

5 parties were involved, the NEA, Town Council and the non existent Hawker’s Association. I hope I got it right that there was no hawker association in the first place or just an informal one. Correct me if I am wrong. The hawkers in the market are not new. They have been operating there for many years and know exactly whether they should or should not pay for the scaffolding. The Town Council may be a bit new and could be expected to be raw or unfamiliar with some of the administrative stuff. But they are expected to know what they can make the hawkers pay and what they cannot. They would not dare to ask the hawkers for payment if they are not supposed to do so. This is a public matter and not something that can be hidden away. They can’t cheat the hawkers. The hawkers and the staff in the Town Council know what is happening. If they are asking for payment, it is likely be an honest mistake. There are things called honest mistakes right? The WP is denying that they did.

As for the NEA, lagi simple. They are the authority and administrator of market maintenance and Town Council matters. They must be very clear as to what the Town Council can collect and what cannot. A young executive from NEA could tell the parties in disagreement clearly who should pay for what. NEA could easily nip this misunderstanding in the bud.

It is strange and highly unsatisfactory that this little administrative misunderstanding could end up in Parliament and becomes an issue of honesty and integrity. And I believe Vivian Balakrishnan must have been convinced that he had an air tight case to prove that the WP MPs had to answer on issues of honesty and integrity. In the Parliamentary debate you could see how confident and assured he was in lecturing the WP MPs and in patronizing Low Thia Khiang to investigate his party members. And for Hsien Loong to openly state that he and his cabinet supported Vivian’s stand, it must mean that he and his cabinet too were convinced that it was a good and unquestionable case to push in Parliament. In a way Hsien Loong is putting his credibility behind Vivian’s charge.

The latest development is the revelation that two key personnel in the dispute are PAP members. This disclosure would create some doubts as to whether this is strictly an issue involving the hawkers and the Town Council or between the WP and PAP. The lawyers will use this to cast doubts into the case.

The next unfortunate things are the notes of the NEA officer and the dossier of Vivian. Apparently the NEA notes were referring to Spring cleaning and Vivian’s dossier was referring to Annual cleaning. Low Thia Khiang’s final statement in Parliament was about a misunderstanding between these two events. The Town Council thinks that it was Spring cleaning and the hawkers would have to pay for the additional scaffolding. They will not charge for Annual cleaning which they have planned for the year end.

Now, is the NEA officer clear that this is an issue of Spring cleaning? If so, why is the dossier of Vivian saying that it is Annual Cleaning? How did the word ‘Annual’ gets into Vivian’s dossier but not in NEA’s notes?

Would Low Thia Khiang stick to his position and regard this little discrepancy also as a misunderstanding and say move on, let the people be the judge? Or would he now go to Parliament with another air tight case that Vivian now has a case to answer on honesty and integrity when the NEA notes and his dossier are concerned? Would Low patronize Vivian and ask him to do an investigation into the matter to clear himself of the same accusation hurled at him?

Whose honesty and integrity are now in question?

Obama saddened by the verdict on Trayvon’s killing

Obama, the President of the USA, has spoken on this tragic killing of a black boy called Martin Trayvon. The unarmed 17 year old boy was shot dead by a burly white man armed with a gun and claiming self defence. Many white supremacists and their sympathetisers did not see anything wrong with that. And a jury of 6 with only one black woman in it gave a verdict that Zimmerman, the killer, should go free.

The black Americans are in shock. Together with the rest of the Americans, including many whites, they are up in protest. More than 100 cities staged protest rallies against this clearly unjust and racist verdict. Obama had no choice but to say his piece.

He related his own personal experience as a black man and how he was also the victims of racial profiling. What is this silly term called racial profiling? The White Americans tried to go around it and avoid saying bluntly that it is racism against the black Americans. Obama said most black Americans had such bad experience. And the boy Martin could be him. Obama could be killed in the same way.

In his Presidential address on the racial discrimination by the White Americans against the coloured people especially black Americans, he minced his words by carefully saying how disgusted he felt politely. He asked the Americans, the white Americans, to go do some soul searching on how they are still discriminating against the blacks in their racist ways.

Many silly Asians are still saying that this is a lie. The white Americans cannot be racist and the black boy deserved to be killed as he is black and according to racial profiling he is dangerous.
Where is JayF?

Singaporeans should stop uttering the phrase foreign talents

For so many years, the Sinkies have been conditioned to look at foreigners as talents and the Sinkies as daft. In reality, the foreigners have also gone through similar education systems in their respective countries as the Sinkies going through our own system. And many of the foreigners actually went through a poorer and less well equipped education system compares to the Sinkie system, which on paper is ranked among the world best. How did Sinkies become non talents when rubbish becomes more talented?

Why is a Sinkie with the same degree or degrees, be it a first degree or post graduate degree be non talent while a foreigner with the same degree/degrees becomes a talent? Why is a Sinkie with the same number of years of working experience be less able than a foreigner with the same number of years of experience? Why is a foreigner with lower qualifications, less distinguished qualifications, lesser number of years of experience be deemed better than a Sinkie and made to be heads of depts and institutions and the Sinkies be left in the cupboard?

Sinkies must take pride in themselves as the real talents. It must be. The Sinkies are schooled in one of the finest education system, one of the most expensive, and have proven their abilities to build a country from the Third World to the First World. In the case of the foreigners, many are schooled in ill equipped education system with poor facilities and inadequate teaching staff, in unranked universities, and came from Third world countries that they failed to turn them into First World, how on earth that they are now better talents than Sinkies, to help Sinkies, to create jobs for Sinkies when they could not help their own countries, could not find jobs in their own countries?

Who are the silly ones who are calling these Third World products as talents and rubbishing Sinkies as not talents, helpless, useless and daft?

All Singaporeans, especially the new media, the netizens, should henceforth refrain from the use of the phrase foreign talents or FTs. There are foreign talents but there are very few and only very exceptional ones. The more Singaporeans keep calling these foreigners as talents, the more Singaporeans unconsciously start to believe that they are when they are not and start to believe themselves as unworthy. Any Singaporean that spouts this phrase should be seen as betraying Singaporeans and deriding Singaporeans and should not deserve to be respected by Singaporeans, be they politicians or otherwise. Only real talents are deserving to be called talents.

Let’s do it together to say the right thing that favours Singaporeans and not the right thing that abuses and belittles Singaporeans. Let’s stop the crap that the lesser number of Singaporeans in the island is to strengthen the Singaporean core. It is a lie. The Singaporean core cannot be strengthened by having more foreigners to take over the rightful place of Singaporeans as citizens and in job opportunities.

Foreigners should just be referred to as foreigners, foreign workers, foreign white collar workers or at most foreign PMETs, ie foreign ‘pampered, mediocre, expensive thrash’.

Where is ownership of omission, negligent or fraud?

When the Subprime crisis and the American financial crisis hit, no one was found guilty of any crime or mistake or fraud. They only one punished was the institutions that were fined. This ultimately means that the main street, the minority shareholders had to pay for the crimes of the management.

When the Lehman bonds and toxic notes hit Singapore, something very similar happened. Only a few out of luck jokers down the line were dismissed to take the blame. The top management that allowed the farce and fraud to do damage to the investors continued to enjoy their big fat bonuses and pay. Whose money ultimately went to pay for the fines of these banks?

The NTUC’s My First Skool was issued with a warning and its licence shortened to 6 months pending probation. No one in management was held responsible. The teacher that committed the abuse was sacked and pending prosecution. If the Skool is closed, who suffers?

Think Mas Selamat and think the HDB fiasco. Think the state of health of the SMRT. Think the Sovereign Wealth Fund. Where is responsibility and where is accountability?