The Messiah is gaining credence with Hsien Loong taking up his
challenge, to face threat with threat. Hsien Loong has declared war on
The Messiah. We would get you, with no stone unturned, or as good as
that. Internal and external resources would be tapped upon to flush out
this anonymous hacker. If I did not forget, someone was trying to trace a
blogger, was it Screwball or something like that, in Sammyboy but
nothing heard after that. Did they get their man or still trying?
As it is now, The Messiah is still an unknown element in cyberspace, a
virtual figure. Going after him is like ghost chasing. So far The
Messiah had only made a vitual threat but has done nothing serious, or
had he? Hsien Loong’s comment is as good as throwing the gauntlet into
the ring and telling The Messiah, let’s fight. If this Messiah is real,
then he is going to react unless he senses that the mighty Singapore
govt and its IT warriors would be good enough to nail him down and it is
better to take Hsien Loong seriously, stay away from Singapore. No more
threats and no more hacking. Going after a hacker can be done quietly
with no announcement. An open statement is like a shouting match.
On the other hand if he is worth his salt and confident that he could
wreck havoc to the Singapore govt, he is now prompted to do something.
There is a saying, 多一事不如少一事, would it be better to just keep quiet and
see if The Messiah escalates his threat by doing something? Or it would
be better to let a second stringer minister to make a less
confrontational comment? Is it worth the fight?
Anyway, the fight is on I suppose, and when the ante is up more
fireworks will follow. Then again, The Messiah may just chicken out and
nothing happens, with Hsien Loong calling his bluff. A serious attack on
our computer systems, so many out there, can be quite disturbing and
troublesome actually. But we have the best IT brigades to deal with the
attack, so it is a matter of who is better and who shall triumph and
rise as the victor.
So far so good. No more attacks.
PS. I wrote this yesterday and looks like it has been overtaken by what
happened last night. TRS has reported that the PMO website has been
defaced with the mask of The Messiah smiling in it. This episode shows
that Yaacob is the cleverest of all the ministers. Anyone who stands up
will only draw enemy fire to him. Better to lie low for the time being.
Now who is next?
11/08/2013
11/07/2013
You can’t live there
Below is an extract of Thomas Friedman’s article on the airpocalyspe in
Beijing and how bad it has become appearing in the Today paper today.
‘….“What if China meets every criteria of economic success except one: You can’t live there.”
Indeed, what good is it having all those sparkling new buildings if you are trapped inside them? What good is it if China’s rapid growth has enabled four million people in Beijing to own cars, but the traffic never moves?
What good is it if China’s per capita incomes have risen to a level affording tens of millions of once-poor peasants diets rich in milk and meat, ...? What good is all that rising GDP, if there is no clean air to breathe?
China has built amazing hardware in 30 years — modern cities, roads, airports, ports and telecoms….’
Allow me to substitute the word China with the word Singapore and ask a slightly different question. ‘What good is Singapore with all the economic successes if there is no Singaporean living there?’ When I said Singaporeans you know what I mean.
‘….“What if China meets every criteria of economic success except one: You can’t live there.”
Indeed, what good is it having all those sparkling new buildings if you are trapped inside them? What good is it if China’s rapid growth has enabled four million people in Beijing to own cars, but the traffic never moves?
What good is it if China’s per capita incomes have risen to a level affording tens of millions of once-poor peasants diets rich in milk and meat, ...? What good is all that rising GDP, if there is no clean air to breathe?
China has built amazing hardware in 30 years — modern cities, roads, airports, ports and telecoms….’
Allow me to substitute the word China with the word Singapore and ask a slightly different question. ‘What good is Singapore with all the economic successes if there is no Singaporean living there?’ When I said Singaporeans you know what I mean.
What is HFT or High Frequency Trading
Business Times journalist Sivanithy wrote an article(yesterday) on SGX’s initiative
to consult the public on HFT trading in the SGX. The introduction of
the HFT is now a matter of when, so what is this public consultation all
about? Should not the SGX try to educate the public on what this HFT is
all about, the pros and cons of this newcomer?
Sivanithy asked a few very basic and pertinent questions. What is HFT and the need for SGX to educate the public on this new animal that it assumed everyone knows what it is but the truth is that no one knows. It is not as simple as what people think, that HFT is there to provide liquidity in the market to benefit the other traders.
Without knowing how this animal works, what kind of advantage it has over the rest of the players, no one knows how dangerous or what harm it can cause to the market. One thing for sure, HFT is not here to do charity. Its mission is simply to take advantage of any arbitrage situation to take profits. Technically, it can only make profits and not losses. So, how is this going to benefit the other players? How can the exchange allow HFT or any other instruments to enter the market with a clear cut advantage, to make profits while other players lose?
This applies to Algorithm trading. The Algo players have the advantage of their super computers to compute and take positions to make profits. It is like a sure bet. And who are the losers or the sure losers? The exchange should have enough data by now on who are the big net gainers from the market. Both Algo traders and HFT traders are more or less guaranteed to profit from the system with the aid of high tech equipment. This is a violation of the exchange’s guiding principle and responsibility of providing a level playing view.
What is the SGX and MAS’s positions on this? Is it fair to the rest of the traders? Are they breaking their own rules and regulations?
There is a need to tell the whole story on the capabilities of the HFT and Algo trading technology? Don’t just tell the people how good they are. The public and the govt need to know how harmful they are. The public were told how good the Lehman Bonds and toxic notes were but nothing about how bad they could turn out. We need to learn from that mistake and handle this new animal with great care.
What information is made available to them and not to the other traders and how they can take advantage of the information to make assured profit? If the technology can assure them of profits, how can they be allowed to do so when other traders enter the market with the risk of losing instead of making profits? How can SGX/MAS allow HFT and Algo traders to play in the market when they can only be winners and paying a small clearing fee? Is this the case?
The public and other traders have the right to know what they are up against. There is a need for transparency and disclosure on what these two systems can do and are doing. How many Algo computers are already hooked onto the SGX computers and how many HFT computers will be allowed into the system?
It is the responsibility of MAS and SGX to provide a level playing field and fair play. Period. The public cannot be let into a market blindfolded without knowing how dangerous these new players are and what they are up against, and with their hands tied.
Sivanithy asked a few very basic and pertinent questions. What is HFT and the need for SGX to educate the public on this new animal that it assumed everyone knows what it is but the truth is that no one knows. It is not as simple as what people think, that HFT is there to provide liquidity in the market to benefit the other traders.
Without knowing how this animal works, what kind of advantage it has over the rest of the players, no one knows how dangerous or what harm it can cause to the market. One thing for sure, HFT is not here to do charity. Its mission is simply to take advantage of any arbitrage situation to take profits. Technically, it can only make profits and not losses. So, how is this going to benefit the other players? How can the exchange allow HFT or any other instruments to enter the market with a clear cut advantage, to make profits while other players lose?
This applies to Algorithm trading. The Algo players have the advantage of their super computers to compute and take positions to make profits. It is like a sure bet. And who are the losers or the sure losers? The exchange should have enough data by now on who are the big net gainers from the market. Both Algo traders and HFT traders are more or less guaranteed to profit from the system with the aid of high tech equipment. This is a violation of the exchange’s guiding principle and responsibility of providing a level playing view.
What is the SGX and MAS’s positions on this? Is it fair to the rest of the traders? Are they breaking their own rules and regulations?
There is a need to tell the whole story on the capabilities of the HFT and Algo trading technology? Don’t just tell the people how good they are. The public and the govt need to know how harmful they are. The public were told how good the Lehman Bonds and toxic notes were but nothing about how bad they could turn out. We need to learn from that mistake and handle this new animal with great care.
What information is made available to them and not to the other traders and how they can take advantage of the information to make assured profit? If the technology can assure them of profits, how can they be allowed to do so when other traders enter the market with the risk of losing instead of making profits? How can SGX/MAS allow HFT and Algo traders to play in the market when they can only be winners and paying a small clearing fee? Is this the case?
The public and other traders have the right to know what they are up against. There is a need for transparency and disclosure on what these two systems can do and are doing. How many Algo computers are already hooked onto the SGX computers and how many HFT computers will be allowed into the system?
It is the responsibility of MAS and SGX to provide a level playing field and fair play. Period. The public cannot be let into a market blindfolded without knowing how dangerous these new players are and what they are up against, and with their hands tied.
Worker’s Party coming into the hijab discussion
WP is calling for a national conversation on the hijab issue after the
Malay community met up with Chee Hian and Yaacob. The conclusion on that
meeting did not go down too well as nothing changes, not that there
must be a change if the situation does not warrant it. While there could
be or could not be a national conversation on this issue, or another
one sided conversation initiated and led by the WP this round, I would
like to draw a few premises that I think could be useful in this free
for all talk shop.
There are two premises that we must strongly guard, ie our secular national ethos and our cultural heritage. In an attempt to deal with a matter like the hijab that could transcend religion and culture, it can be tricky and even sensitive to some. If we can keep the lines of secularity clearly in the picture, we may have to define how far we can and want to go before hitting the OB markers, things may be more manageable. We do not want to allow every other religion to want to have their religious ways in a secular society and environment. We do not want, as an example, a group that insists on wearing drappy grey and head shaven in the office, male or female. We do not want people who insist that they cannot shave nor cut their hair for both sexes. Let’s keep our society a secular one and let religion be practiced at home or in one’s private space. The common space should be kept secular.
We must be proud of our cultural heritage, the way of life of the 4 major racial groups that founded this island. We do not want to integrate and compromise our way of life with the new migrants. We are not migrants. Our forefathers were and that is their story. We are stayers. Migrants are temporary visitors that are here and may not be here tomorrow. Migrants have no homes or countries of their own or have abandoned them. This is our home. We are the owners and we decide and must dictate what we want our country to be and how we want to live. The visitors or migrants must accept our way of life.
We have so many new migrants coming in and with their huge numbers there will be a time when they would want to demand to be recognized, their religions, cultures and ways of life. Singaporeans, the first movers in this country must be the top priority and must call the shot. We decide. Foreigners, new citizens and migrants must accept our terms and not the other way. Don’t like it they can go elsewhere.
The hijab is also a cultural thing, part of the Malay custom and baju. Correct me if I am wrong. It should be addressed from this perspective, to protect and promote our cultural heritage. Promoting the use of the hijab on religious grounds will open the Pandora box for all and sundry to make their special and unique demands that would be difficult to accept and may not be tolerable.
The Singaporeans must keep our cultural heritage as a part of us. We must promote their use as our way of life. We do not want to be China Chinese, India Indian or Arabs. In the course of time, there could be things from the foreigners that are useful and good and would gradually take form. Let that be. We can be flexible to allow the good stuff to be a part of us without compulsion or legislation. Good stuff will be good stuff and will be welcomed and accepted by the populace. Let our unique identity survive and thrive on its own without being pressurized or being harrassed by foreigners and foreign influences.
We are Singaporeans. This is our home. Let’s talk hijab.
There are two premises that we must strongly guard, ie our secular national ethos and our cultural heritage. In an attempt to deal with a matter like the hijab that could transcend religion and culture, it can be tricky and even sensitive to some. If we can keep the lines of secularity clearly in the picture, we may have to define how far we can and want to go before hitting the OB markers, things may be more manageable. We do not want to allow every other religion to want to have their religious ways in a secular society and environment. We do not want, as an example, a group that insists on wearing drappy grey and head shaven in the office, male or female. We do not want people who insist that they cannot shave nor cut their hair for both sexes. Let’s keep our society a secular one and let religion be practiced at home or in one’s private space. The common space should be kept secular.
We must be proud of our cultural heritage, the way of life of the 4 major racial groups that founded this island. We do not want to integrate and compromise our way of life with the new migrants. We are not migrants. Our forefathers were and that is their story. We are stayers. Migrants are temporary visitors that are here and may not be here tomorrow. Migrants have no homes or countries of their own or have abandoned them. This is our home. We are the owners and we decide and must dictate what we want our country to be and how we want to live. The visitors or migrants must accept our way of life.
We have so many new migrants coming in and with their huge numbers there will be a time when they would want to demand to be recognized, their religions, cultures and ways of life. Singaporeans, the first movers in this country must be the top priority and must call the shot. We decide. Foreigners, new citizens and migrants must accept our terms and not the other way. Don’t like it they can go elsewhere.
The hijab is also a cultural thing, part of the Malay custom and baju. Correct me if I am wrong. It should be addressed from this perspective, to protect and promote our cultural heritage. Promoting the use of the hijab on religious grounds will open the Pandora box for all and sundry to make their special and unique demands that would be difficult to accept and may not be tolerable.
The Singaporeans must keep our cultural heritage as a part of us. We must promote their use as our way of life. We do not want to be China Chinese, India Indian or Arabs. In the course of time, there could be things from the foreigners that are useful and good and would gradually take form. Let that be. We can be flexible to allow the good stuff to be a part of us without compulsion or legislation. Good stuff will be good stuff and will be welcomed and accepted by the populace. Let our unique identity survive and thrive on its own without being pressurized or being harrassed by foreigners and foreign influences.
We are Singaporeans. This is our home. Let’s talk hijab.
11/06/2013
Hijab is nice
As a kid I lived next to Kampong Radin Mas. Many of my classmates were
Malays from the kampong. We played together with no consciousness of the
differences in us. We were one people.
Radin Mas was a boy school. The Malay girls or ladies we saw were in the kampong. The ladies were very pretty with their hijabs. I did not know when the of wearing the hijab becomes an issue. From my childhood memory, I have the impression that it was cultural and not so much religious. They were part and parcel of the Malay baju.
The hijab is not the burqua used by the Arabs that covered almost totally that no one really knows who is behind the burqua. It would pose many difficulties when identification is needed. Today there is also the security angle to consider.
I personally find the hijab very normal and very nice. One consideration is that it may become a hazard in a difficult working environment. In such a situation, wearing of the hijab is best avoided. The other consideration is when it is not part of a uniform like the army where there are proper headgears. In other situations like in nursing, a grey area where the hijab may become obstructive in some situations, allowing hijab or not is a matter of judgement. Wearing of the hijab should not be a problem in most office environment unless they are so huge and drappy. It can be very fashionable and graceful as well.
I hope an amicable solution can be reached and everyone is happy. Let the people making all the big money come up with a win win solution. Yes, they are very good at win win kind of things. A rule of thumb judgement is to ask whether the wearing of a scarf by anyone is acceptable in the work place.
Radin Mas was a boy school. The Malay girls or ladies we saw were in the kampong. The ladies were very pretty with their hijabs. I did not know when the of wearing the hijab becomes an issue. From my childhood memory, I have the impression that it was cultural and not so much religious. They were part and parcel of the Malay baju.
The hijab is not the burqua used by the Arabs that covered almost totally that no one really knows who is behind the burqua. It would pose many difficulties when identification is needed. Today there is also the security angle to consider.
I personally find the hijab very normal and very nice. One consideration is that it may become a hazard in a difficult working environment. In such a situation, wearing of the hijab is best avoided. The other consideration is when it is not part of a uniform like the army where there are proper headgears. In other situations like in nursing, a grey area where the hijab may become obstructive in some situations, allowing hijab or not is a matter of judgement. Wearing of the hijab should not be a problem in most office environment unless they are so huge and drappy. It can be very fashionable and graceful as well.
I hope an amicable solution can be reached and everyone is happy. Let the people making all the big money come up with a win win solution. Yes, they are very good at win win kind of things. A rule of thumb judgement is to ask whether the wearing of a scarf by anyone is acceptable in the work place.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)