Singapore the flag bearer of TPP

After putting the intelligence of our super talents together, Singapore carved out an idea called TPP. It was so convincing that this TPP thing is so good, they never tell you any negative things about it, so it must be one of those things that only have goodness and no bad effects, they also think that it is good to all the countries in the Asia Pacific region. Hsien Loong even travelled all the way to the US to convince the American law makers that this TPP thing is the ‘koyoke’ to save the declining American economy. Obviously Obama could not sell this ‘koyoke’ to his colleagues and the American people.

And because this is our baby, we have been trying all means to get the Chinese, Koreans, the Japanese and Asean countries to come on board. Ouch, someone just elbowed me. Oops, this is NOT our baby. It is an American baby, an American construct for American domination and control of the Asia Pacific countries again. Then why are we in such a state of frenzy in pushing for the TPP? Do we get a cut for the effort?

You see, there have been many free trade agreements signed in the Asia Pacific region without the Americans in them. How can that be, how can they exclude the Americans in these agreements and not allowing the Americans to be the leader and calling the shots? America must be the leader of all world and regional organisations so that it can continue to dominate and control the world. Now, why are the Americans taking the back seat and Singapore carrying the TPP flag?

Look at the MH370 incident. What expertise or technical knowledge do the Australians have to be dictating to the countries involved that they knew the aircraft sank in the Antarctic Ocean? Are the Australians the technical experts in satellites, are they in control or in touch with the captain of MH370? Did any Australian radar actually pick up signals or radio conversation with MH370? Zilch. How is it that Abbott thinks he knows all and the whereabouts of MH370? Think.

Why is Australia calling the shots and acting like the front man in the new coalition against the ISIS? Why are the Australians hyping up the terror threat in Australia when the war is half way across the world? Why is Australia the flag bearer of this coalition?

Let’s get back to the phrase, ‘If the US did not do this, it would be “giving the game away”’. ‘Giving the game away’ could have different meanings. One is to lose the game. Another is to let out a hidden intent or agenda. Put this in a proper context, in Rachel Au Yong’s article, Delays in TPP ‘could affect US presence in Asia’ in the Sunday Times on 21 Sep, the whole intent and purpose of the TPP is about ‘a strategic and significant presence in the Asia Pacific’. It is not really about trade and commerce. And Hsien Loong had this to say, ‘having a presence “is not just battleships and aircraft carriers and aeroplanes. You have to have trade, goods exchanges …interdependence. And the TPP is your way of doing this.’

Agree, TPP is the only disguise the Americans could have to pretend that its presence is about trades and not about war and domination. And this is followed by the quote, ‘If the US did not do this, it would be “giving the game away”’. Now the meaning is clear, the true agenda of the TPP.

In the same article Hsien Loong was quoted to say, ‘We are all in Asia, interacting and trading with one another…So, you don’t promote trade, what are you promoting? What does it mean when you say you are a Pacific power? It just does not make sense’.

To the Americans, their presence of battleships, aircraft carriers and aircraft make perfect sense. It is all about American power and control of Asia Pacific countries. Trade is secondary and a guise to promote the military interest of the American Empire. Do I still need to explain what the TPP is all about?

Kopi Level - Red

Chok Tong going to help India build a smart city

A statement like this tickles a lot of thinking and questioning. Are the Indians stupid and not able to build their own smart cities? Are we smarter than the Indians to build smart cities for them? Who is going to pay for the building of smart cities? Would we end up building the smart cities using our public fund and paying for it?

We have been telling the whole world that we don’t have the talents and needing foreign talents to come and help us. And we are importing all the talents from India to help us. Practically every Indian with some talents are here, or in Europe and US. Perhaps that is the reason why the Indians could not build their own smart cities. They have lost their talents to the world and to us.

So what is the likely formula to help the Indians build smart cities? We bring in Indian talents and used our money, packaged it and bring the whole lot to India, Indian talents and Singapore money, to build smart cities for India.

Can it be like that? I can’t find the local talents here to do the job. Our people just don’t have the skill sets for such a high tech project. Our talents are only equipped to drive taxis. Or would we be asking the recruitment agents to recruit the talents from India for this job?

So, may I ask how much are we going to spend and what is the protection clause to ensure that we get our money back and not dump it into a bottomless pit because it is OPM? Is this another I want, I want project?  Sure the potential of building another 100 smart cities is there, like Suzhou.  And on paper the benefits are tremendous, like Suzhou and the F1. And the intangible benefits could reach sky heaven. The bottom line is what is real, how much is it going to cost us and how much are we getting in return and not another few hundred millions for the intangibles.

The Chinese were smart enough to learn from one Suzhou Park to go on and build many other industrial parks on their own. The Indians with all their talents that are more talented than our talents would be equally smart to build their own smart cities after we build one for them. We have so far proven that we are not as smart as the Chinese or Indians. It is time to learn from our stupidity and not to keep reinforcing it and wasting our money like OPM.

Remember CECA!

Who doesn't know how to spend OPM to make a name for himself? How many millions has Singapore spent on the Nalanda University?

Kopi Level - Yellow

What’s the Fuss over Singapore CPF and Roy Ngerng?

By MIKOspace

Nagging Questions abound on Roy Ngerng’s "Shocking Facts About CPF" .

Did PAP Take Our CPF to Pay for the GIC’s and Temasek’s Losses? Unfortunately, or fortunately, Roy and his co-writer DID NOT answer his own question in the undisputable affirmative.

I read many times Roy’s arguments over several posts regarding CPF, income inequality, Government Reserves, HDB Car Parks, Medisave and Medishield, poverty and a host of social issues he so passionately advocates. Most of these issues are unrelated to each other. It is however plainly painful to see Roy’s desperate attempts to persuade his readers to connect his missing dots so as to make some kind of connections between his interesting infographics in order to arrive at his “conclusions” regarding some kind of sinister motives in the PAP Government to conspire against Singaporeans and, particularly, to expropriate our hard-earned CPF funds.

It is known that GIC and Temasek Holdings lost $117 billion in 2008, mostly due to the US financial crisis. The writers produce lots of “official” statistics in beautiful charts and infographics. But statistics are not arguments. Not a single shred of evidence - no smoking gun - is produced to trace the flow of funds from CPF to their supposed end eventually to cover GIC and Temasek’s losses.  It would have been better if the writers had “follow the money” and show the “missing funds” in the CPF, and trace their path, in some forms - whether as loans, equity, advances, gifts or bonds – into the books of GIC and Temasek.  They did not do so.  It would also be a better bonus revelation for them to reveal that these “losses” – an astonishing S$117 billion were never paid back into the CPF. 

The alleged big dark hole of $117 billion in the CPF’s books is surely difficult to miss since the CPF reported its Funds to have only about S$252.5 billion as at 31 December 2013.  And if no money were actually “missing” from the CPF – please check audited public accounts in CPF Annual Reports – how could the CPF have been used to cover up GIC/Temasek losses?  In fact, the writers already refuted their own conclusion when they observed that since 2007, “CPF balance Grew by 90% … but GIC grew by only 69% and Temasek Holdings grew by only 21%.

The writers fail to grasp the significance of their own discovery. Their statement is by far the clearest evidence that GIC and Temasek DID NOT receive CPF Funds. The figures are true and only make sense if both GIC and Temasek were just “fund managers” and therefore the funds under their  “management” are not technically Temasek/GICs’ and therefore cannot be entered into their accounting books or balance sheets in accordance with standard accounting procedures and practices.

This should have been the end of the allegation that “the PAP took our CPF to pay for the GIC’s and Temasek’s losses”.  It did not.

Perhaps, “Shocking Facts About Singapore CPF” was NOT and was NEVER intended to argue that “CPF was used to pay for GIC/Temasek losses”.  That conclusion was seized upon only sometime at the end without leading logical arguments towards it. Therein lies the fundamental weakness and failure of of “Shocking Facts”.

The “Shocking Facts” posts began by pointing out and illustrating that the contribution rates to CPF was “unusually” high relatively when compared to other countries’ provident and pension contribution rates. Nothing “shocking” here. This is neither new nor revealing.  There is nothing sinister; and the associated reasons for this to be used for national development, housing and medical are transparent, and are not unduly unreasonable....

It is clear that the writers did not understand the concepts that they used to argue poverty and income inequality in Singapore. If they did intend to use “Poverty” defined and measured by the World Bank as daily earning of just US$1.25 (or S$1.50 per day), the writers have actually asserted that 28% of Singaporeans or 963,200 persons in 2013 earn just S$39 per month!  In 2013, the Singapore labour Force was 3.44 million as at June 2013.

I wonder whether I have been reading and fed blatant falsehoods and lies. Or it is simply just sloppy research, ignorance and poor analysis. Better analysis, better research, credible statistics and direct relevant evidence cannot be substituted by loud and emotional political slogans to cover up for illogical and bad arguments.

Kopi Level - Yellow

Read Full Article with more References:

What's the Fuss over Singapore CPF and Roy Ngerng?

Alibaba – The Chinese have arrived

After all the sneering, doubting and badmouthing, the dusk has settled. Alibaba, owned by Jack Ma, a nondescript Chinese man who would not get a second look by anyone on the street, has launched a successful IPO in New York Exchange with a record IPO opening price and record gains on the first day of trading. At an issue price of US$68, it opened at US$92.70 and hit a high of US$99.70 before profit takings set in to close at US$93.89. The closing price would put Jack Ma in the company of Bill Gates and Warrant Buffet, among the richest man in the world.

The rich communists’ day has arrived. The Chinese have arrived in the form of Alibaba. Times are changing and the stereotyping of poor Chinese immigrants and cooks would be retired to a bygone era. The confidence in Chinese stocks and enterprises would regain some credibility after some dramatic failures in the recent past. Alibaba is seen as the real thing, a very profitable company in a rapidly growing economy. No American investors with some money would want to miss this wagon like how the West was won.

A few more Chinese companies in the same genre as Alibaba would likely help to reinforce the value of investing in Chinese stocks. But along the way there are bound to be some jokers that would come and go to ruffle the confidence of investors.

Alibaba was so big that it eclipsed all interest in the launch of iphone 6 on the same day. Wall Street held a live roundtable telecast with its top crew talking non stop for more than 2 hours on the early opening hours of NYSE. The listing of Alibaba was delayed by nearly 3 hours as the opening price was deemed too high and they were scrambling to bring it lower on fear of creating a bubble. Nonetheless it still opened very high and closed higher.

Jack Ma and his Alibaba suddenly become the darlings of the American investors for the day. Many just could not believe what they saw and were scrambling for more. The biggest company in value listed on the American stock exchange is Chinese.

Kopi Level - Yellow

Why a Coalition of Forces against IS?

In the first place who created this monster called ISIS?  American media have touted this honour to Hillary Clinton, calling her the grandmother of ISIS. The ISIS was given life by the Americans when they went in to kill Saddam Hussein and intervened in Syria. With Saddam gone, with Assad on the defensive, there is no Arab leaders or dictators with the stature and power to put a leash on the ISIS fighters. And they morphed into a new and more powerful military force with equally powerful appeal and mission. They have no need to call for a coalition or twist the arms of any country to form a coalition. The fighters went there voluntarily, fighting with their hearts.

The Americans are rounding up a coalition by force. They are demanding a coalition against the wills of other nations. The sickening thing was that when they bulldozed their way into Iraq and other Middle East countries to do their regime change and to kill their leaders, the Americans did not see a need to get any approval or agreement from their allies. They brazenly and rudely did what they wanted to do, even against the wishes of their allies, countries they are coercing to be part of the coalition now.

Why is there a need for a coalition when the Americans could do it on their own? Thomas Friedman had put it simply, that this war cannot be seen as the West attacking the Arab countries. This war cannot be seen as Christians against Muslims. The Americans need to camouflage this war as a war by a coalition of countries against the IS.

What are the implications or consequences to the other members of this unwilling coalition? In a simple analogy, the Americans are holding the hands of their allies to catch a poisonous snake. The hands could be beaten by the snake in the process. The Americans started a dangerous war, releasing a very brutal and powerful force, they branded it as an evil force. Now the American wanted other countries to participate in the suppression of this force.

If the Americans were to do it alone, they would be the one and only target for the IS to attack. By forcing a coalition of many countries, these countries will share the risk and also become targets of ISIS. To the Americans, it is spreading their risk.

To the members of this unwilling coalition, they are force to fight a war that they have nothing to do with and would end up as enemies and targets of ISIS. The weaker members of this coalition, especially those with a substantial Muslim population and with sympathizers of the ISIS, would likely to bear the brunt of retaliation by the ISIS. The attacks by ISIS would not be confined to Iraq and Syria. It could be anywhere or in any country, but likely to be in countries that are members of the coalition.

Welcome to the Coalition of the ‘Willing’ and share the risk.

Thomas Friedman’s latest article ‘Helping the Arabs to help themselves’ revealed an American hard truth. I quote ‘But then he asks: “(Is the Islamic States) really a problem for the US?  The American interest is not stability, but the existence of a dynamic balance of power in which all players are effectively paralysed so that no one who would threaten the US emerges….’

Now, would the Arabs understand what the Americans are doing to them? Would the rest of the world understand the intent of the Americans around the world? Thank you Tom for this hard truth that many Afro Asians are too dumb to appreciate, refused to see, or wanted to know.

Tom Friedman has a good advice for the Americans in Washington, let the Arabs fight and defend themselves. They have bigger stakes and interests to protect themselves if only the Americans take their hands off their problems. What Tom forgot is that the American war industry would want to be involved and would want Washington to be involved. That’s where the money is.

Should Singapore be part of this coalition?

Kopi Level - Yellow