Comments about SGX uncalled for?

I have heard a lot about this Vincent Khoo over the last couple of weeks and of his numerous letters on SGX and remisiers in the main media. He must have written something ‘right’ to get so much publicity and attention by the media. I have not met him or read any of his ‘renowned’ articles until this morning. I would expect the article to be just as objective and logical for it to be accepted for print in the main media. Although the rankings of our media are not too flattering, topping the list from the bottom up, there must still be some sensible guys to publish non political articles that are deserving and of some quality, at least from the point of logic and objectivity.
 
The first comment by Vincent Khoo this morning is that SGX did not suffer a breakdown. It just decided to close down the exchange for the whole morning. What is a breakdown is subject to different interpretations. The official reason was that SGX was downloading a new programme overnight and some users would need some time to reconcile some of the trades. So SGX decided to close down a regional market, no trading for the whole morning. Whether this is an acceptable practice for a big regional market was not discussed.
Assuming that a major stock market can suka suka close down for whatever reasons it deems fit, can this logic be applied to other organizations like the trains, the TV stations, telecoms or whatever when they feel like it? Or can we see SGX closing down more frequently, not because of breakdowns or system maintenance? Is this the new normal?
 
The next point Vincent chastised the remisiers for is claiming loss of business because of shorter trading hours and also the excuse for the return of a lunch break by extrapolation of trading hours. More trading hours more business and vice versa. To Vincent this is illogical, short of pure heresy. He forgot that the SGX used the same reason to justify for the cancellation of the lunch break. No lunch break means longer trading hours, means increasing in trading and more commission. Is Vincent also saying that the SGX was silly for using this stupid logic?
 
His third point is to quote a remisier claiming to have 50 to 100 trades in the early morning. So remisiers not doing well must learn from this remisier. Is this a sensible suggestion? I just feel like saying don’t talk cock. A swallow does not make a summer. Using statistics to lie, selective picking of statistics to lie, is not very clever. To be fair and objective, one has to use the full set of statistics available to come out with a sensible story. Cherry picking is only for one out to deceive.
 
If one or two remisiers is suffering from poor business, it is reasonable to say they may be the problem though not necessary so. If 70 or 80 percent of the remisiers are suffering from low business, something is obviously wrong. Even if Vincent Khoo is doing exceptionally well, it does not speak for the whole industry. Why doesn’t he quote Peter Lim and say every remisier must be making millions like Peter Lim, otherwise the remisier is underperforming? There are always exceptions and exceptions are exceptions and should not be used as the norm.
 
I am still puzzled why the msm gave this Vincent Khoo so much space to print his one sided and skewed articles? Is his thinking process that logical? Or do the editors of the msm think the articles are logically argued and deserving to be in print?
 
The most important point is whether a regional bourse can suka suka close down its operation whenever it feels like it and be accepted as normal. How many idiots out there think that this is acceptable? I hope SMRT would not stop the train services when it feels like it for whatever reasons. Hsien Loong said the govt must set the standard. Is this the kind of standard for SGX?
 
Comments against SGX for two stoppages uncalled for? What kind of standard are we talking about? Are we another 3rd world city with a 3rd world stock exchange? I think 3rd world stock exchanges also did not have so frequent downtime.

Kopi Level - Blue, thank you.

ST Asian of the Year Award – I am very disappointed

This Award is getting quite mysterious. I read that Thein Sein also received the Award, or did he not? I quote Kishore in Straits Times online 8 Dec, "Foreign Policy magazine has named Thein Sein No.1 in its list of Top 100 Global Thinkers for 2012. The International Crisis Group will present Thein Sein with its top honour, the In Pursuit of Peace Award. Thein Sein truly deserves all these awards, especially the Asian of the Year Award by The Straits Times. There could not be a more deserving recipient." Barry Desker also commented on Thein Sein being given the Award

And on the 7 Dec the Sunday Times reported that Modi of India was the Asian of the Year. Now how many people received this Award, or who actually received this Award? With so many congratulatory messages and a repeat in the Today paper on 8 Dec. I believe it is Modi who was the recipient. And I am still very disappointed, not because Modi was given the Award. The citations on Modi and how deserving he was and all his achievements pale in comparison with someone I know who have outshone Modi in everything.

Modi greatest achievement, I am still puzzled why they called it achievements, was to meet some of the world leaders. The person I have in mind have met the same world leaders many times and have probably met all the leaders in the whole world. If this is the criteria of a great man, the person I have in mind is hundreds of times greater. He has met hundreds of leaders many times over.

And while Modi is planning to build more toilets, my candidate is building smart cities. See the difference? And not only that he is building smart cities in his own country, he is offering to build smart cities for Modi. And his achievements are so numerous that you can fill a library with his works. Just to name a few great structures under his watch, the most expensive undersea highways in the world, the most expensive artificial garden, two famous and most profitable casinos. And there is a Jewel coming up in Changi that is probably one of the new wonders in Asia.

But these are nothing when you consider the millions of jobs created for the jobless around the world in Singapore. Hundreds of thousands of 3^rd world professionals have benefited from his policy to hire foreign talents in the City. The happier ones were given citizenship to this great modern city. And of course the citizens also greatly benefited from the contributions of the foreign talent policies. Many became millionaires and multi millionaires. And over the years, a few tens of thousands of university scholarships worth hundreds of millions, just my guesstimates, were given to 3^rd world students to study in Singapore. MOM and MOE would be able to provide the data as concrete proof of the achievements, not just someone shouting in the hills but got nothing to show.

What did Modi really do in his 6 months on the job compared to what Lee Hsien Loong has done and the hundreds of thousands of workers and students who have benefited from his enlightened policies, and the filtering down effect on lucky Singaporeans?

Now my big unhappy question is why did the Straits Times overlook the enormous contributions of Hsien Loong to Singaporeans and 3^rd world citizens? What are the criteria that made Modi more deserving than Hsien Loong? These were not mentioned in the Straits Times. Maybe the paper can be more transparent and publish the criteria for the Award for Asian of the Year. It did not even tell the readers who are the eminent selection committee members that decided on the deserving recipient.

I really not happy that Hsien Loong was overlooked for this Award. His achievements could even put him on the list for Nobel Peace Prize for helping the under privileged lots of 3^rd world citizens and making many millionaires as a result.

The Award would have come in so useful in the General Election if given to Hsien Loong. Maybe still in time if the GE is held in 2016/7. Straits Times still got time to make amends to give the Award to the most deserving PM of Asia in 2015 or 2016.

Kopi Level - Blue, thank you.

Mayor Boris Johnson – Britain should not keep out talented people

This is what the visiting London Mayor said when he was here. And this is very important as he is the only mayor in London with a population that is double that in this tiny island. In absolute terms, he is running two Singapore alone. In this sense I think it can be said that he is quite talented than those mayors running a housing estate of a few thousand inhabitants. No? Ok, Ok, look at it in another way, he is not so dignified, not because he took the train to visit the Istana, but because his pay is not even half a peanut. He definitely would not qualify to be called a super talent in this city. Did he send a message, that he is the poorest mayor visiting the richest PM, so better to know his place, and take a train?

Ok, I have digressed. Why is his comment important? You see, he just said the right and sexy thing, and our boys and girls would be drumming this comment to justify their push for more foreign talents. And they would not be bothered to look at what else he said to qualify his statement. No, Boris Johnson is not talking about a blank cheque even if he disagrees with David Cameroon. He assured that what David Cameroon is going to do, to curb immigration is also legitimate and necessary. There is a need for foreign talents, and Britain has benefited a lot from it.

Boris Johnson cautioned against the free loaders and the fake talents and the cheats. Britain too would not want the fakes and the cheats. But what to do when they don’t have a system to check on the cheats or are outsmarted by the cheats? Just pretend not to see lor, close one eye, and just treat all of them as talents and no one would miss a heart beat except the loser PMEs who were replaced by the cheats. Anyway, it is the losers’ problems. As long as the losers are happy being taxi drivers and security guards, or remained unemployed, as long as they did not complain or march to Parliament House, there is no problem.

So, before any boys and girls take up the megaphone and blare that we need more foreign talents, please take note of the fine prints. And please do something serious to get rid of the fakes and half bakes to protect the jobs of the PMEs. If not, it is a matter of time before they come after your asses.

Kopi Level - Green

Minxin Pei – Understanding a colonized mind

This is a Chinese by ethnicity professor of government at Claremont McKenna College, US. She wrote an article titled “Why China should drop its slogan of ‘Asia for Asians’” in the editorial page of the ST on 5 Dec. She was obviously very offended by Xi Jinping’s called for ‘Asia for Asians’ as if it infringed on her mental freedom as a ‘westerner’, and thinking all good things must be western centric with the West as the centre of human civilization. She could not see her western biased agenda and thinking process. I will leave you to read her thrash but just to quote a few paragraphs to prove my point.
 
‘Some Chinese strategists believe the US is using Asian states particularly Japan, the Philippines and Vietnam, as pawns to contain China. If this perspective has prevailed at home, Chinese leaders, including Mr Xi, could have reached the fateful conclusion that, on balance, America’s security presence in Asia directly threatens Chinese interests and must be eliminated.
 
That would be a grave strategic error, based on a fundamental misreading of Asian security dynamics. Most of China’s neighbours, even North Korea, fear an unconstrained Chinese hegemon – and, if the US security presence were eliminated, that is precisely what they would face. ‘Asia for Asians’ would be ‘Asia for the Chinese’.’
 
From the above quote one can see how naïve is this professor. She does not believe that the US is using Japan, the Philippines and Vietnam to contain China. Of course she believes that this is not the case because the Americans told her so. She also believes that the American presence in Asia does not threaten Chinese interests. I am wondering is she a juvenile? Of course the Americans have been threatening Chinese interests since the Second World War with a series of containment policies and overt and covert threats to China’s interests and national security. She does not know that? My God!
 
Of course the American threat must be eliminated if you are a Chinese and managing China’s national interests. But for a banana thinking like a banana, China is the threat to America and must be contained but keep telling the Chinese to believe that the Americans are not doing anything to contain China. How silly can she be as a professor?
 
What about the perception of China as a hegemon? The Americans are the hegemon and still the hegemon. China is a rising power challenging the primacy of this hegemon but has yet to be a hegemon.
 
What cock is she talking about? Yes, many Afro Asians are thinking exactly what the West and the Americans are telling them, just like her, Americans are for peace and China is belligerent, hostile and a hegemon to be. After centuries of reading this kind of literature, even a naïve professor would have her brain cleansed and washed to think so. It must be.
 
It would take at least half a century for the Afro Asian minds to think that China could be and is a friendly power unlike the American Empire that is oppressing the whole world and threatening the whole world with wars and interventions. It is not easy to clean up the minds of unthinking masses subjected to the daily dosages of mind bending propaganda. Soak the mind with Dettol would not work either.
 
China would have to prove by words and deeds to its neighbours that it is a friendly power. It is doing that in Africa and Central Asia. It is doing so in South East Asia as well but not easy when the Americans are behind their thinkings. China is growing to be more assertive or is it the Philippines, Vietnam and Japan or Australia that are getting more assertive? As a hegemon, China would have kicked the asses of the Philippines and Vietnam and ran all over Japan and India. It does not do any of this stuff but restraining itself to diplomacy unless forced into a tight corner.
 
China is not a hegemon. There is no room for hegemon and empires in modern geopolitics. War is no longer an option to settle big power disputes. China is winning the war for influence by trade and economic policies. Not a single Chinese soldier is engaged in wars of domination and hegemony in any corner of the world. Whose soldiers are doing that, fighting wars and interfering in the domestic politics of independent states and nations and threatening regime change?
 
Only idiots are blind to see. A professor can also be an idiot, be blind to see the truth right before his or her very eyes.
 
PS. I should use the title ‘How to get a university education and still be stupid’.

Kopi Level - Green

Hsien Loong: PAP must set the standard!

The PAP has started its election rally yesterday. And the speeches were as normal as any political rally from any politician. In colloquial style, they amount to ‘Lin peh is the best. Lin peh serve the people, Lin peh is honest, transparent and accountability.’ The rally cries were to stir the emotions, fire the supporters to take up the fight. And the supporters did not fail. They shouted back, ‘Yes, Yes, hallelujah’ in response to the cry of their leaders. If there was a problem, ‘We settle now’. And the supporters roared in approval. This is not much different from meet me at the cul de sac.
 
The atmosphere must be highly charged with every supporter leaving the rally with the glint in their eyes and walking like Bruce Lee ready for a fight. That was what a political rally is meant to be. Get the people motivated, excited and aroused.
 
After the din and fury subsided in the quiet of home and senses, and after the dusk has settled down, not many would remember what was said. But they would be reminded calmly by the media, minus the emotion and temperature on what their leaders said. Hsien Loong said many things. The notable was PAP would do its best to send strong teams to the opposition wards to win them back. But he cautioned about when this could be done. Now the WP must be all in anticipation of very strong PAP teams led by strong ministers. We would have to see.
 
The other thing that came out starkly was flaming in the social media. Hsien Loong talked about transparency and the need for PAP to set the standard. How would this be done? PAP had previously declared the existence of its Internet Brigade. And they have been very active or very inactive and none has stood up to tell the netizen he is from the PAP brigade. Till today, none is proud enough to own up to say, ‘I am PAP Internet Brigade, and I am proud of it’, and signing in his real name with PAP behind it, like BBM or PBM. So far it can be assumed that they are just as opaque and sneaky hiding behind anonymity.
 
Would PAP set a new standard and make all its Internet Brigades to post with their real identity, not anonymous, be transparent, and be proud of what they are doing and be proud of being PAP Internet Brigade? Or would they be like the others, no transparency and flaming others and taking pot shots at other bloggers and feeling ashamed of their very existence?
 
What kind of standard and transparency would the PAP set in the internet and social media? Would PAP be just like everyone else or would it be different, setting the standard for transparency?
 
Would there be a PAP standard in transparency in social media?

Kopi Level - Green