This is true. The 6.9m population for 2030 is only a part of the
planning process. Grace Fu announced in Parliament that population
growth for 2013 was 80,000, 30k from newborns, 20k from new citizens and
30k from PRs. And this is the slowest growth in the last 10 years, a
pull back after the unprecedented protest at Hong Lim Park. What would
it be like without the protest is left to your own imagination.
The govt is ‘pulling back’ its plan for population growth! Really? At
this rate, with a population of 5.4m, and if the govt is to add 80k
every year, in 10 years, the population will be 6.2m. By 2030 it will
add in another 560k to make it to 6.67m, a whisker away from the 6.9m
planned.
So, would we have 6.67m or 6.9m in 2030? And after 2030, if growth is a
necessity, would the population still continue to grow at the same rate
and where will it end?
Anyone wondering why is there such an obsession to grow the population
by hook or by crook. No population growth means no economic growth, no
jobs for Sinkies but plenty of jobs for foreigners? It is like a drug
addict, no matter how many rounds of cold turkeys, or how many times
thrown into jail, die die must have the fix. No matter how many times
the people protest, the population must grow as planned.
Does it mean that the country will collapse or something worse will
happen if the population is not boosted? What is so critical that the
govt must ignore the complaints and wishes of the people that it must go
against the people?
Why? What is the intent of the govt? What is the real reason for this
outrageous and unacceptable policy to be pushed with total disregard of
the people’s will? There must be something very serious that the govt is
not telling the people for wanting to go ahead with the population
growth that the people did not want and opposed to it.
Or is this the best this one trick pony can do with the millions they
are paid? They just cannot think of any better alternatives?
Why? Would the govt tell the people why it is so desperate for
population growth? Where is the transparency and accountability? Why the
secrecy? Tell the people the alternatives, but not the kind that our
women folks will become maids.
Kopi Level - Green
3/06/2014
China should not apologise for defence budget
Though China’s defence budget has been increasing and now second only to
the Americans, it is only a fraction of the American defence budget.
Why is it that no one is complaining about the Americans having an
obtuse defence budget that allows them to invade countries after
countries but instead complaining about China’s small budget? Why are
the Americans and some silly countries complaining about the Russians
using force to invade a smaller country like Ukraine when the Americans
have been doing the same and in bigger scale in Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan
and Pakistan?
China is a big country and needs a big military to defend its national interests. China had been a victim of western and Japanese aggression and invasion for more than a hundred years when it was militarily weak. It must learn from its history not to be weak again and be victims of foreign aggression.
At the height of Japanese militarism, the Japanese pointedly told the Chinese Viceroy, Li Hong Chang, that it was China’s fault for being weak and invited aggression. And Japan was the biggest culprit in taking advantage of China’s weakness to invade China and Korea.
What is Japan complaining about China’s bigger military budget? Is Japan thinking that China must be militarily weak so that it could take advantage of China’s weakness once again to invade China?
China should remind the Japanese of their aggression and pointly tell the Japanese that China must be stronger militarily than Japan to stop Japanese from adventurism. And should Japan dare try to invade China, China would return the favour by invading Japan. The Japanese only understand the logic of military power. And it has rearmed itself to the teeth though it was against its pacifist constitution to do so.
China should not apologise to any country to be a super military power. It has to be strong to prevent any country from thinking it is ok to invade China or to mess around with China or claim Chinese territories as theirs. A strong China would bring peace to the world as it would stop any country from making mischievous plan against China. A weak China will make itself sexy for foreign invasion, and would make smaller countries easy targets for the Americans to invade as well, without China to say No to the Americans. Countries in the Middle East, Africa and SE Asia particularly the Asean countries will have to bear with the naked use of power by the Americans without a powerful China.
China is a big country and needs a big military to defend its national interests. China had been a victim of western and Japanese aggression and invasion for more than a hundred years when it was militarily weak. It must learn from its history not to be weak again and be victims of foreign aggression.
At the height of Japanese militarism, the Japanese pointedly told the Chinese Viceroy, Li Hong Chang, that it was China’s fault for being weak and invited aggression. And Japan was the biggest culprit in taking advantage of China’s weakness to invade China and Korea.
What is Japan complaining about China’s bigger military budget? Is Japan thinking that China must be militarily weak so that it could take advantage of China’s weakness once again to invade China?
China should remind the Japanese of their aggression and pointly tell the Japanese that China must be stronger militarily than Japan to stop Japanese from adventurism. And should Japan dare try to invade China, China would return the favour by invading Japan. The Japanese only understand the logic of military power. And it has rearmed itself to the teeth though it was against its pacifist constitution to do so.
China should not apologise to any country to be a super military power. It has to be strong to prevent any country from thinking it is ok to invade China or to mess around with China or claim Chinese territories as theirs. A strong China would bring peace to the world as it would stop any country from making mischievous plan against China. A weak China will make itself sexy for foreign invasion, and would make smaller countries easy targets for the Americans to invade as well, without China to say No to the Americans. Countries in the Middle East, Africa and SE Asia particularly the Asean countries will have to bear with the naked use of power by the Americans without a powerful China.
A new moral code, a new legal system
Ross Ashcroft said this in his documentary called The Four Horsemen,
‘When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together
in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal
system that authorises it and a moral code that glorifies it’.
Some of you may miss the significance of this statement on the state of decadence. It is a truism that transcends time, society, culture and ideology. Remember what happened to the Animal Farm in the final chapters? I had a rude reminder of this kind of mindset last night over Channel News Asia in the programme SG+ hosted by Melanie Oliveiro. It was all about the idealism of a young socialist and the thinking of a decadent establishment. The topic was about the widening income gap between the rich and poor and the standard replies of the decadent mind to brush aside the youthful ideas of socialism.
Every misgiving was quickly brushed away by shallow excuses. The points that the income gap should be closed and the rich taxed more were casually rebutted by well rehearsed replies of a new moral code. The growing income gap is a normal thing in capitalism, must be accepted and nothing should be done to curb it. We must not kill the initiative and entrepreneurial spirit of the rich. Let them grow richer. We don’t want to be all poorer like in communism.
Did anyone suggest to kill their entrepreneurial skill? Did anyone want to tax them to run away? Did anyone want everyone to be poor communist? Actually this is an outdated mindset. You need to be communist to be rich. The new rich are the communist. Ask the comrades visiting the shopping paradise of the world’s fashion capitals and they will tell you they are communist. The capitalists are living in debt except for the super rich.
We can help the poor by education and a level playing field. We should not bring back estate duties. There is nothing wrong with the rich passing their wealth to their children. We will help the poor to be rich, would that not be better? Why rob the rich to give it to the poor? The polite socialist corrected this by saying, no, it is not so silly to just take from the rich to give to the poor. Why make such a silly argument like daft children? The taxes could, yes, go to help the poor in education and assistance schemes to make them help themselves.
There are rich not because they were entrepreneurial and investing in industries and taking big risk. There are many that turned rich by collecting salaries and passive incomes for doing nothing or doing very little. But this part must not be spoken. The new moral code is to facilitate some people to get rich by association without much contribution, or just by bullshiting.
And everything is legally right, supported by a new legal system. The Americans went much further by allowing the banks to gamble their clients’ money or gamble against their clients, totally legal. Their laws have been changed and new laws passed to allow such crimes to become not crimes. Their stock exchanges were supposed to operate under a fair system and a level playing field but no more. The unfairness and unlevel playing field were not spoken, nobody wants to know or talk about it. When crimes are no longer crimes, the decadence has reached its peak.
It is only a matter of time when the system is brought down on its knee and the perpetrators be put behind bars. A new social moral code and legal system that are more equitable would be brought in to replace the decadence legal system and moral code the rich elite have created for themselves, to protect their vested interests.
You guys should watch the repeat broadcast of this programme these few days or view it at CNA’s archive to know what I mean. It is a classic production. The rich elite will justify their wealth and their robbery by false and shallow pretences, sophistry that only they believe in.
Some of you may miss the significance of this statement on the state of decadence. It is a truism that transcends time, society, culture and ideology. Remember what happened to the Animal Farm in the final chapters? I had a rude reminder of this kind of mindset last night over Channel News Asia in the programme SG+ hosted by Melanie Oliveiro. It was all about the idealism of a young socialist and the thinking of a decadent establishment. The topic was about the widening income gap between the rich and poor and the standard replies of the decadent mind to brush aside the youthful ideas of socialism.
Every misgiving was quickly brushed away by shallow excuses. The points that the income gap should be closed and the rich taxed more were casually rebutted by well rehearsed replies of a new moral code. The growing income gap is a normal thing in capitalism, must be accepted and nothing should be done to curb it. We must not kill the initiative and entrepreneurial spirit of the rich. Let them grow richer. We don’t want to be all poorer like in communism.
Did anyone suggest to kill their entrepreneurial skill? Did anyone want to tax them to run away? Did anyone want everyone to be poor communist? Actually this is an outdated mindset. You need to be communist to be rich. The new rich are the communist. Ask the comrades visiting the shopping paradise of the world’s fashion capitals and they will tell you they are communist. The capitalists are living in debt except for the super rich.
We can help the poor by education and a level playing field. We should not bring back estate duties. There is nothing wrong with the rich passing their wealth to their children. We will help the poor to be rich, would that not be better? Why rob the rich to give it to the poor? The polite socialist corrected this by saying, no, it is not so silly to just take from the rich to give to the poor. Why make such a silly argument like daft children? The taxes could, yes, go to help the poor in education and assistance schemes to make them help themselves.
There are rich not because they were entrepreneurial and investing in industries and taking big risk. There are many that turned rich by collecting salaries and passive incomes for doing nothing or doing very little. But this part must not be spoken. The new moral code is to facilitate some people to get rich by association without much contribution, or just by bullshiting.
And everything is legally right, supported by a new legal system. The Americans went much further by allowing the banks to gamble their clients’ money or gamble against their clients, totally legal. Their laws have been changed and new laws passed to allow such crimes to become not crimes. Their stock exchanges were supposed to operate under a fair system and a level playing field but no more. The unfairness and unlevel playing field were not spoken, nobody wants to know or talk about it. When crimes are no longer crimes, the decadence has reached its peak.
It is only a matter of time when the system is brought down on its knee and the perpetrators be put behind bars. A new social moral code and legal system that are more equitable would be brought in to replace the decadence legal system and moral code the rich elite have created for themselves, to protect their vested interests.
You guys should watch the repeat broadcast of this programme these few days or view it at CNA’s archive to know what I mean. It is a classic production. The rich elite will justify their wealth and their robbery by false and shallow pretences, sophistry that only they believe in.
Open letter to MAS's Consultation Paper
Below is my letter to MAS in response to their open call for feedback from stakeholders in the stock broking industry.
PM Lee Hsien Loong
DPM/Finance Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam
The MD MAS R Menon
CEO SGX Magnus Bocker
5 Mar 14
The Stock Market is NOT fine. It is no longer a level playing field and has been redesigned for unfair trading in favour of computer trading. (This two line statement is a summary of this paper)
This is an open letter to the above gentlemen and will also be posted in my blog, www.mysingaporenews.blogspot.sg/.
The Stock Market is not fine contrary to what was stated in the discussion paper issued jointly by the MAS and SGX. The condition of the stock market is dire, in a state of denial and slipping into a coma. Yes, the trading volume gives an impression that it is healthy and active. The revenue and profit of the SGX suggested that all is fine and presumably the market will continue to function in this manner for a long time to come, with the SGX chalking up good revenue and profit as it gets along. It is NOT. There are hardly any retail traders in the market. Why?
The Stock Market is not only the SGX. It has other players and stakeholders. And all is not fine except for the SGX and the computer traders. Some of the front line soldiers, the remisiers, are earning less than what a cleaner or security guard is getting. Younger remisiers have already left the industry or seeking employment. Only those that could not find alternative employment are sticking it out and waiting for the broking houses to ask them to leave.
The retail traders have fled from the market.
With this pathetic level of commission, the broking houses too would not be able to sustain their operations at the current scale and would soon have to downsize and retrench staff. The supporting staff will have to go and overhead cuts. Some may want to get out of the business too.
For companies listing in the SGX, soon they will realise that it is a waste of time when the value of their shares are near to worthless. It is a joke that the prices of stocks in the main board of a regional financial centre with big ambition can be less than 5 cents or even worse, less than 1 cent. And this is not an exception.
What is happening to the Stock Market? What are the causes that led to this dismal state of affair? Some stakeholders will still swear that it is fine. They will not want to see the elephant in the class room. What is that?
The culprit that is causing the demise of the Stock Market is not contra trading as they would want you to believe. Excessive contra trading and speculations need to be moderated but not to be wiped out. They are the soul and spirit of a small market. Without contra trading and speculations you will have a market the size of a pea.
The Stock Market today is not the traditional stock market that we knew before. All the principles and fundamentals of a traditional stock market have been violated and cast away. The Stock Market we have today is nothing but a casino in disguise but without the strict regime, regulations and controls of a casino.
The SGX has been reorganised and redesigned to allow computer traders using high speed sophisticated computer systems to trade against unsophisticated investors or even big funds still trading on fundamentals and believing that they are investing in the long term. Rules and processes have been changed to facilitate computer trading to be more effective and efficient, taking full advantage of computer power, time and speed, and financial resources to cream the market, to trade against investors without the benefits of these computers. Continuous trading with no lunch breaks, small board lot size, minimum bid size, script borrowing, keying in of short positions, etc etc were all created to favour computer trading against other traders.
High speed computers of computer traders are plugged into the SGX system to have access to information of other traders and their positions and simply trading against them with no regards to the fundamentals of the stocks. Computers trade for profit by buying and selling against the rest of the investors, often depressing prices of stocks against their real values. They have cleaned up the traders, big and small, and not many are left with money to lose.
Put it simply, computer trading is unfair trading, unfair advantage. It violates all the fundamentals, principles and regulations of the SGX to provide a level playing field and fair trading to all the players. How could this be allowed by the SGX? This is criminal.
I am not making any suggestion or recommendation as to how to save the Stock Market. The solutions are obvious but no one wants to see or do the right thing. The invitation for the public, the uncles and aunties for their recommendations to improve market activities, but creating an unfair and uneven playing field, reflects two things. One, they do not see anything wrong with the current system. Two, they are not serious.
The problems in the industry and the Stock Market are very serious and highly technical. You need experts and professionals who can understand what is happening and the complexities of the market mechanism to know what is wrong and what are needed to put things right.
If you get the picture, and see the problem and want to do something about it, it is best to set up a COI of experts who not only know what they are doing but have the heft and confidence to change what really need to be changed. You would need people like Paul Volcker or some real foreign talents who are critics of the existing flawed stock market system to tell the truth about the unfairness of the system. The advocates of the system will not volunteer to tell you what is wrong with the market and the system. They will say it is fine. This is how far I am prepared to comment.
For a ‘nobody’ to make suggestions is not only rude but a waste of time when the believers and converts of the current system could simply throw the paper into the waste bin. You need a COI of professionals to make real changes, failing which you can wait to bury the Stock Market in a year to two.
If you have bothered to read this far, there is some hope that the stock market industry can be saved. And I thank you for your patience and trouble to hear me out.
Thank you.
Kopi level - Green
PM Lee Hsien Loong
DPM/Finance Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam
The MD MAS R Menon
CEO SGX Magnus Bocker
5 Mar 14
The Stock Market is NOT fine. It is no longer a level playing field and has been redesigned for unfair trading in favour of computer trading. (This two line statement is a summary of this paper)
This is an open letter to the above gentlemen and will also be posted in my blog, www.mysingaporenews.blogspot.sg/.
The Stock Market is not fine contrary to what was stated in the discussion paper issued jointly by the MAS and SGX. The condition of the stock market is dire, in a state of denial and slipping into a coma. Yes, the trading volume gives an impression that it is healthy and active. The revenue and profit of the SGX suggested that all is fine and presumably the market will continue to function in this manner for a long time to come, with the SGX chalking up good revenue and profit as it gets along. It is NOT. There are hardly any retail traders in the market. Why?
The Stock Market is not only the SGX. It has other players and stakeholders. And all is not fine except for the SGX and the computer traders. Some of the front line soldiers, the remisiers, are earning less than what a cleaner or security guard is getting. Younger remisiers have already left the industry or seeking employment. Only those that could not find alternative employment are sticking it out and waiting for the broking houses to ask them to leave.
The retail traders have fled from the market.
With this pathetic level of commission, the broking houses too would not be able to sustain their operations at the current scale and would soon have to downsize and retrench staff. The supporting staff will have to go and overhead cuts. Some may want to get out of the business too.
For companies listing in the SGX, soon they will realise that it is a waste of time when the value of their shares are near to worthless. It is a joke that the prices of stocks in the main board of a regional financial centre with big ambition can be less than 5 cents or even worse, less than 1 cent. And this is not an exception.
What is happening to the Stock Market? What are the causes that led to this dismal state of affair? Some stakeholders will still swear that it is fine. They will not want to see the elephant in the class room. What is that?
The culprit that is causing the demise of the Stock Market is not contra trading as they would want you to believe. Excessive contra trading and speculations need to be moderated but not to be wiped out. They are the soul and spirit of a small market. Without contra trading and speculations you will have a market the size of a pea.
The Stock Market today is not the traditional stock market that we knew before. All the principles and fundamentals of a traditional stock market have been violated and cast away. The Stock Market we have today is nothing but a casino in disguise but without the strict regime, regulations and controls of a casino.
The SGX has been reorganised and redesigned to allow computer traders using high speed sophisticated computer systems to trade against unsophisticated investors or even big funds still trading on fundamentals and believing that they are investing in the long term. Rules and processes have been changed to facilitate computer trading to be more effective and efficient, taking full advantage of computer power, time and speed, and financial resources to cream the market, to trade against investors without the benefits of these computers. Continuous trading with no lunch breaks, small board lot size, minimum bid size, script borrowing, keying in of short positions, etc etc were all created to favour computer trading against other traders.
High speed computers of computer traders are plugged into the SGX system to have access to information of other traders and their positions and simply trading against them with no regards to the fundamentals of the stocks. Computers trade for profit by buying and selling against the rest of the investors, often depressing prices of stocks against their real values. They have cleaned up the traders, big and small, and not many are left with money to lose.
Put it simply, computer trading is unfair trading, unfair advantage. It violates all the fundamentals, principles and regulations of the SGX to provide a level playing field and fair trading to all the players. How could this be allowed by the SGX? This is criminal.
I am not making any suggestion or recommendation as to how to save the Stock Market. The solutions are obvious but no one wants to see or do the right thing. The invitation for the public, the uncles and aunties for their recommendations to improve market activities, but creating an unfair and uneven playing field, reflects two things. One, they do not see anything wrong with the current system. Two, they are not serious.
The problems in the industry and the Stock Market are very serious and highly technical. You need experts and professionals who can understand what is happening and the complexities of the market mechanism to know what is wrong and what are needed to put things right.
If you get the picture, and see the problem and want to do something about it, it is best to set up a COI of experts who not only know what they are doing but have the heft and confidence to change what really need to be changed. You would need people like Paul Volcker or some real foreign talents who are critics of the existing flawed stock market system to tell the truth about the unfairness of the system. The advocates of the system will not volunteer to tell you what is wrong with the market and the system. They will say it is fine. This is how far I am prepared to comment.
For a ‘nobody’ to make suggestions is not only rude but a waste of time when the believers and converts of the current system could simply throw the paper into the waste bin. You need a COI of professionals to make real changes, failing which you can wait to bury the Stock Market in a year to two.
If you have bothered to read this far, there is some hope that the stock market industry can be saved. And I thank you for your patience and trouble to hear me out.
Thank you.
Kopi level - Green
3/05/2014
Why Russia invades Ukraine?
The ouster of pro Russian Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych was
unacceptable to Putin. He cannot accept the loss of another pro Russian
state to the hands of the USA. Putin needed a good excuse to move in to
keep Ukraine under the sphere of Russia.
His excuse was simply to protect the ethnic Russians in Ukraine, comprising 50% of Ukraine’s population. This may or may not be a legitimate reason but a good enough reason for a powerful state to use as an excuse to invade another nation.
We have a large foreign population among us, all in hundreds of thousands from the PRC Chinese, India Indians, Malaysians, Indonesians and the Pinoys from the trigger happy and most powerful Asean country, the Philippines. Any of these countries, if powerful enough, could use the excuse of protecting their citizens here to invade us.
We are lucky that this would not happen. Not that they cannot find an excuse. We have the most powerful military force in the region and we can take on anyone. And we also have the backing of the Number One superpower, the USA behind us. So we are safe as long as the Americans don’t have a reason to want to invade us. Anyway, they are already here, so there is really no need to do so.
The only time when we have to worry about the Americans is when we become too close to China or Russia. Then the Americans could use the same excuse, to protect their citizens and also their investments here to invade us.
In the game of big power politics, we can become a pawn to any of them. The current geopolitical equation may make some think that an invasion is very unlikely, just like the invasion by the Japanese from Northeast Asia, so far away, and not really that powerful compares to the big powers today.
We are very safe, even with so many foreign nationalities living here. Our presumption is that it is exactly because they are here that their countries will not invade and destroy their investments here. Makes sense right? No? It gives them more reasons to covet the island, a prime asset without anyone interested in wanting ownership. In fact it seems that the owners are so willing to share, to give it away.
Let me quote Bilahari Kausikan in his article in the ST today. 'Do not just listen to the sweet words of foreigners, however pleasing to the ear. We must calculate our own interests as clinically as we can and not let anyone beguile us into believing they know better.'
His excuse was simply to protect the ethnic Russians in Ukraine, comprising 50% of Ukraine’s population. This may or may not be a legitimate reason but a good enough reason for a powerful state to use as an excuse to invade another nation.
We have a large foreign population among us, all in hundreds of thousands from the PRC Chinese, India Indians, Malaysians, Indonesians and the Pinoys from the trigger happy and most powerful Asean country, the Philippines. Any of these countries, if powerful enough, could use the excuse of protecting their citizens here to invade us.
We are lucky that this would not happen. Not that they cannot find an excuse. We have the most powerful military force in the region and we can take on anyone. And we also have the backing of the Number One superpower, the USA behind us. So we are safe as long as the Americans don’t have a reason to want to invade us. Anyway, they are already here, so there is really no need to do so.
The only time when we have to worry about the Americans is when we become too close to China or Russia. Then the Americans could use the same excuse, to protect their citizens and also their investments here to invade us.
In the game of big power politics, we can become a pawn to any of them. The current geopolitical equation may make some think that an invasion is very unlikely, just like the invasion by the Japanese from Northeast Asia, so far away, and not really that powerful compares to the big powers today.
We are very safe, even with so many foreign nationalities living here. Our presumption is that it is exactly because they are here that their countries will not invade and destroy their investments here. Makes sense right? No? It gives them more reasons to covet the island, a prime asset without anyone interested in wanting ownership. In fact it seems that the owners are so willing to share, to give it away.
Let me quote Bilahari Kausikan in his article in the ST today. 'Do not just listen to the sweet words of foreigners, however pleasing to the ear. We must calculate our own interests as clinically as we can and not let anyone beguile us into believing they know better.'
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)