There is a scathing attack of the Philippine military by the New York
Times today. Basically it said that the Philippine military is outdated
and lost, no equipment and no leadership, and doing so little in the
aftermath of the Haiyan disaster. While the eastern islands of the
country was devastated, the Philippine military were waiting for things
to happen, waiting for equipment, waiting for orders that never came
because their useless mobile phones didn’t work.
On the other hand the Americans were running the whole rescue operations
with their latest military equipment, warships and airplanes doing the
donkey work. The best the Philippine military could do was sentry duties
to guard against looting. Let me quote, ‘The destructive fury of
Typhoon Haiyan quickly laid bare the limitations of the Philippine
govt’s disaster preparation and relief capabilities,…it is also focusing
an unflattering spotlight on the nation’s military – an overstretched,
poorly funded force that has been criticized for its late arrival to the
disaster zone….even when several thousand soldiers were finally able to
fan out across the devastated islands…their work was, and continues to
be, hampered by a lack of provisions including food, heavy equipment and
communications technology needed when cellphone service is down.’
My view is that the criticism is overly harsh as the Philippine military
was not designed and equipped for disaster relief work. You should see
how efficient they were in chasing foreign fishing boats in the South
China Seas. They have so many ammunitions to fire at the unarmed fishing
boats and even killing its captain. They even have a new warship with
courtesy from the Americans. And they are ever ready to take on China
head on should a war erupt. NYT should not under estimate the military
prowess of the Philippine military.
The govt has also budgeted $2.15b to buy more war equipment to modernize
its military. Only hitch is that the equipment is still on the way.
Once the equipment arrives, it will be a military force to be reckoned
with. It is unfair to expect them to be good at disaster work. NYT is
expecting too much.
Singapore just spent $4.3b on a 5km road tunnel. This is exactly double
the amount the Philippines are spending to modernize its military. For a
small military set up like Singapore, this sum of money could double
modernize the Singapore military surely. We may even have a new military
force if $2.15b can modernize a huge military like the Philippines to
take on China.
11/21/2013
New Master Plan for 500,000 new homes
This new Master Plan is called a draft Master Plan. Well, it is the new
Master Plan for the next 10 to 15 years, or between 2023 to 2028.
Would it make any difference if it is a draft or not a draft plan? At 4
persons per new homes, this plan can comfortably accommodate another 2
million residents.
The PWP of 6.9m is for year 2030 and for an increase in population from 5.3m, or an increase of 1.6m in 17 years time. So the two plans seem to be complementary to each other. Some may want to quibble why 7.4m (5.4m +2m) in 2028 and not 6.9m in 2030? Let’s not split hair (or split cables) over such a small discrepancy.
Many Sinkies must be salivating at this prospect, looking forward to such great places to live and play. And being public housing, they will definitely be sold at a discount from market prices, or with a generous dose of subsidies. The future is surely looking so rosy. Boon Wan is planning well ahead.
Let me make a guesstimate of the prices of HDB flats in Holland V in year 2023. If the price is going to double in ten years, each unit of a 4rm flat should easily be around $1.2m at least, conservatively. But not to worry, the income of Sinkies should also be double or triple by then, so these flats would definitely be affordable, or the govt will make them affordable.
I can only dream, for by then I dunno where would I be. The fortunate young Sinkies would be the future proud owners of these dream homes and living a great life, gracious living among 7m people.
The PWP of 6.9m is for year 2030 and for an increase in population from 5.3m, or an increase of 1.6m in 17 years time. So the two plans seem to be complementary to each other. Some may want to quibble why 7.4m (5.4m +2m) in 2028 and not 6.9m in 2030? Let’s not split hair (or split cables) over such a small discrepancy.
Many Sinkies must be salivating at this prospect, looking forward to such great places to live and play. And being public housing, they will definitely be sold at a discount from market prices, or with a generous dose of subsidies. The future is surely looking so rosy. Boon Wan is planning well ahead.
Let me make a guesstimate of the prices of HDB flats in Holland V in year 2023. If the price is going to double in ten years, each unit of a 4rm flat should easily be around $1.2m at least, conservatively. But not to worry, the income of Sinkies should also be double or triple by then, so these flats would definitely be affordable, or the govt will make them affordable.
I can only dream, for by then I dunno where would I be. The fortunate young Sinkies would be the future proud owners of these dream homes and living a great life, gracious living among 7m people.
SMRT wanting to raise fare?
What is the purpose of this fare raising exercise? To increase profits,
to buy equipment, to buy trains, to increase salaries or bonuses?
There could be some justifications to increase salaries as part of the annual increments and to off set some inflationary cost. This cost could easily be absorbed by the profits from its operations. As for bonuses, the workers could still deserve the usual but for top management, how many think they should deserve more than the normal? Working extra to solve all the problems they created cannot be justifications for more bonuses for working so hard. Management cannot be rewarded for self inflicted injury.
How much is needed and to be raised from the fare increases for capital expenditure? $100m enough? Or is it $200m?
Didn’t the govt already give a cash injection of $1.1b for capex? This is equivalent to 5 or 10 times the expected funds to be raised, assuming its target is between $100m to $200m. Even if the fare hike is to raise $1.1b, this is already given. Or is the SMRT thinking of raising more after the $1.1b windfall?
This is a private company with the public as shareholders. The shareholders are as good as being given a cash top up of $1.1b and they shouldn’t be complaining. In fact the public non shareholders should be asking why the SMRT/shareholders should be rewarded with the public’s money for failing to provide a satisfactory service in recent years. The shareholders have been amply rewarded and SMRT can’t be thinking of raising more funds to account to them and reward them with more dividends.
A $1.1b windfall still not enough? Even if it has to go into the red this year, it should accept it for their less than satisfactory service compares to past years. Oh, the $1.1b not counted. This is equivalent to how many years of profts? This sum has saved SMRT from diverting a big sum of money for its capital expenditure. The rest of the expenditure are chicken feat, aren’t they
There could be some justifications to increase salaries as part of the annual increments and to off set some inflationary cost. This cost could easily be absorbed by the profits from its operations. As for bonuses, the workers could still deserve the usual but for top management, how many think they should deserve more than the normal? Working extra to solve all the problems they created cannot be justifications for more bonuses for working so hard. Management cannot be rewarded for self inflicted injury.
How much is needed and to be raised from the fare increases for capital expenditure? $100m enough? Or is it $200m?
Didn’t the govt already give a cash injection of $1.1b for capex? This is equivalent to 5 or 10 times the expected funds to be raised, assuming its target is between $100m to $200m. Even if the fare hike is to raise $1.1b, this is already given. Or is the SMRT thinking of raising more after the $1.1b windfall?
This is a private company with the public as shareholders. The shareholders are as good as being given a cash top up of $1.1b and they shouldn’t be complaining. In fact the public non shareholders should be asking why the SMRT/shareholders should be rewarded with the public’s money for failing to provide a satisfactory service in recent years. The shareholders have been amply rewarded and SMRT can’t be thinking of raising more funds to account to them and reward them with more dividends.
A $1.1b windfall still not enough? Even if it has to go into the red this year, it should accept it for their less than satisfactory service compares to past years. Oh, the $1.1b not counted. This is equivalent to how many years of profts? This sum has saved SMRT from diverting a big sum of money for its capital expenditure. The rest of the expenditure are chicken feat, aren’t they
11/20/2013
TRE finding a formula for self destruct?
I am unable to gain access to TRE this morning. From what I have
gathered, you need to pay to get in. I hope I am wrong. If this is the
formula that TRE has chosen to finance its operation, I think it will
meet a premature death soon.
The game plan in cyberspace is quite different. Many great sites are all free access to viewers. They have to find other sources of revenue, mainly advertisers or selling some products. The monetary contribution is always voluntary. TRE may want to set up a team to canvas for advertisements or seek the experts on how to generate some income.
Even in a blog like mine that is quite well received, I would not dare to ask for contributions. Even lifting the fingers to exercise, to buy me kopi (OPM some more) is often difficult and too much an inconvenience, or simply too easy to forget.
TRE should leave the monetary contributions to those who are willing. There will be some who will contribute quite generously but many would not for some other reasons. There are many students or non working adults and retirees reading the articles and may not be able to contribute. Turning them off would reduce a big chunk of the readership and that is very bad.
TRE, are you reading this? I hope I am wrong and you are not doing so. Richard, what saying you? Or you have a mole telling you this is the best way to raise fund? Remember WTSAWTD? The mole will not tell you that TRE will be obsolete, will be history. You are not the only site in cyberspace doing the same thing.
The game plan in cyberspace is quite different. Many great sites are all free access to viewers. They have to find other sources of revenue, mainly advertisers or selling some products. The monetary contribution is always voluntary. TRE may want to set up a team to canvas for advertisements or seek the experts on how to generate some income.
Even in a blog like mine that is quite well received, I would not dare to ask for contributions. Even lifting the fingers to exercise, to buy me kopi (OPM some more) is often difficult and too much an inconvenience, or simply too easy to forget.
TRE should leave the monetary contributions to those who are willing. There will be some who will contribute quite generously but many would not for some other reasons. There are many students or non working adults and retirees reading the articles and may not be able to contribute. Turning them off would reduce a big chunk of the readership and that is very bad.
TRE, are you reading this? I hope I am wrong and you are not doing so. Richard, what saying you? Or you have a mole telling you this is the best way to raise fund? Remember WTSAWTD? The mole will not tell you that TRE will be obsolete, will be history. You are not the only site in cyberspace doing the same thing.
WTSAWTD
This is a slight variation from WYSIWYG. WTSAWTD means What They Said
And What They Don’t. A couple of years back, we were told that big funds
would be invited to trade in the stock market, to provide liquidity so
that the market will be active and investors can buy or sell easier.
Trading activities would increase and good business for everyone. Bid
sizes were also reduced for the same purpose. Expensive stocks would be
split to make it easier for the small traders to buy one or two units at
lower capital outlay, ie more business also. Computer tradings would be
introduced and facilitated to improve liquidity and volumes. Everything
was done for the good of the market and small investors. Then lunch
breaks were even removed and the carrot, more trading hours mean more
business, at least another ten per cent increase in business.
Derivatives are good, sophisticated instruments for the sophisticated
fools. With all these changes, the stock market would fly to the moon.
All this has come to past. The volumes get thinner and thinner. The small traders were wiped out, sent to the cleaners. Who made the money was obvious. The stock market is a zero sum game. One makes another must lose.
Many good things were said and many not good things were not said. No one talks about how dangerous the big funds and their computers were to the small traders. No one says anything about redesigning the trading system to facilitate the computer traders to clean up the small traders. No one says anything about the unfair advantages of the computer traders and the trading system against the small traders. No one says that no lunch break was to allow the computers to keep trading without having to square and reopen their positions. No one says smaller bid size allows the computers to trade at lower cost and can move faster or can manipulate the stocks more efficiently against the small traders. No one says the losers were the small and big traders not using computers. No one says anything about who are the absolute winners in the market. No one says the number of genuine traders in the market has drastically been reduced and that if the computers stop trading, the market will come to a stand still or turn into a grave yard.
No one is going to say that the market is dying. And they are still saying the market is doing very well, in the pink of health. And to make it looks pinker, bring in the makeup artist for the dead, HFT will be introduced to increase volume and liquidity again. Now, what are they saying about HFT and are they not saying about HFT this time?
All this has come to past. The volumes get thinner and thinner. The small traders were wiped out, sent to the cleaners. Who made the money was obvious. The stock market is a zero sum game. One makes another must lose.
Many good things were said and many not good things were not said. No one talks about how dangerous the big funds and their computers were to the small traders. No one says anything about redesigning the trading system to facilitate the computer traders to clean up the small traders. No one says anything about the unfair advantages of the computer traders and the trading system against the small traders. No one says that no lunch break was to allow the computers to keep trading without having to square and reopen their positions. No one says smaller bid size allows the computers to trade at lower cost and can move faster or can manipulate the stocks more efficiently against the small traders. No one says the losers were the small and big traders not using computers. No one says anything about who are the absolute winners in the market. No one says the number of genuine traders in the market has drastically been reduced and that if the computers stop trading, the market will come to a stand still or turn into a grave yard.
No one is going to say that the market is dying. And they are still saying the market is doing very well, in the pink of health. And to make it looks pinker, bring in the makeup artist for the dead, HFT will be introduced to increase volume and liquidity again. Now, what are they saying about HFT and are they not saying about HFT this time?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)