Please stop the PME crap

The Govt does not have any responsibility or obligation to provide jobs for PRs and foreigners. Period.
 
The civil service, stats boards and GLCs have thousands of good jobs available. Just reserve these jobs for citizens and the PME problems will be solved immediately. The fear of entitlement mentality is non issue as the Govt/employer has the option not to hire the bad attitude and unemployable. Giving preference and priority to citizens is not an unconditional entitlement.There is also no problem with excessive pay for oldies. It is not necessary to pay the oldie PMEs in the millions or the same pay they used to draw.
 
A reasonable compensation, even a 30% cut, for the same job in lieu of the age and slowness of oldies would not be disputed. However, age is not a major determining factor in many job and how the employee should be paid as many could perform just as well or better despite their age. It is the health of the PMEs and whether they are able to cope with the demands of the job. A 90 year old PME could be healthier or more able than a 45 year old. But young and healthy PMEs should be paid their fair value for the job.
 
The Govt should do the necessary with respect to jobs in the govt service and GLCs for Singaporean PMEs. No more crappy excuses. The Govt owes it to the citizens. If the Govt still thinks that it owes the foreigners and PRs good jobs, then let the foreigners and PRs elect them to be the Govt. The citizens should elect a Govt that takes care of their interest and well being, and to provide them with good and decent jobs before offering the excess jobs to foreigners and PRs. Why should they vote for a govt that chose to offer good jobs to foreigners instead of citizens?
 
And stop the silly practice of giving good jobs to foreigners followed by a pink IC at the same time. This is cheating the citizens.
 
The Govt is of the people, by the people, for the people. The Govt is not of the foreigners/PRs, by the foreigners/PRs and for the foreigners/PRs. The people must remember this by hard and so must the politicians that are put into political office by the people. The people must know who and why they vote them to power. Make this an election issue in the next GE. Remember, whoever you vote to Parliament must be there to look after your interest, not the interest of foreigners.

Politicians must not betray the very people that vote them to political office.

Things that Obama cannot do

There are things that Obama or any American presidents cannot do, beyond their power to do, and if they dare to do it, they would not only be voted out immediately, they would be pronounced as insane. Constitutionally they cannot even dream of remaining in their office for more than two terms. This is totally out of question. The Americans would not allow it, would not allow any individual to be entrenched in the Presidency to abuse the authority of the position. They knew this danger two hundred years ago and their wisdom on this matter has never been in doubt. The corruption of men in power is so real and so scary.

There are other things that Obama would not be able to do. He cannot tell the Americans that their life savings, money saved over a life time, is no longer for them to decide how it should be used. The American Govt will henceforth decide for the American people how their life savings should be used, would be used and when they are to be returned to them, the rightful owners of the money. The Americans have no say in their money? Obama or any president trying to do it would be bundled out of the White House in no time.

Any American president thinking of doing it would be accused of insanity or suffering from bi polar syndrome. Or they would risk an assassination bullet in his head for meddling with the people’s life savings as if it belongs to the govt.

Obama would not be allowed to spend billions of American tax payer’s money as he likes, like using it to pay for the education of foreigners, to pay their expenses instead of spending the money on Americans without the consent of the American people, without informing them. He would not last his full term, not to mention a second term to do such a darn thing.

Obama would not be able to allow the reckless influx of immigrants to the US without the approval of Congress. He is still fighting for his life over his immigration policies to give amnesty to the illegal immigrants. It would be foolish for Obama or any American president to bring in foreigners to replace the Americans in good jobs in big numbers. He would be accused of being a traitor and sacked from his Presidency. I am sure the Americans reading this would nod their heads and shake their heads in disbelief if he did otherwise.

Would Obama dare to spend his time fixing his political opponents instead of running the country? No way. His ass would be kicked sore if the Americans know that their President is playing partial politics everyday to keep himself in power. Anyway he needs not try as the constitution would not allow him to stay on after two terms.

And Obama would not be able to write his own paycheck or the paychecks of his staff. If only he could do that, with the size of the American economy and his responsibilities on world matters, he could easily justify to be paid in billions, not in hundreds of thousands as he is being paid today.

Because there are so many limitations in his power, that could be the reasons why he is paid so much lesser than other politicians with practically unlimited powers. The more power a politician wields, the more he can pay himself and can do anything as he likes, as he is the law.

Poor Obama, poor American presidents.

Banker Harm Kar Chan says….

Dear value client,

I thank you for putting $1m in fixed deposit in my bank under your name for the last 50 years. I am glad to inform you that your money has grown over the years from the interests earned. The good news is that at your blissful age of 65, you are a millionaire and you should be smiling at the statements that I will be sending to you monthly, to make you feel safe that the money is still there and in your name.

The bad news, oops, sorry, I mean another good news, since you are happily retired and nobody would want to employ you, you would not have any more income from your employment. The bank is very concern with your financial well being as you grow older without an income. Our expert statisticians said you are likely to live beyond 80 years. And our expert statisticians have it all worked out that you would need so much money to live through your entire life, and what you have in your fixed deposit is just enough, ‘gum gum ho’.

We have implemented a ‘Help Our Customers’ scheme so that you can receive a monthly stipend from the bank, and you don’t have to worry about having no money for your retirement. You will have enough to get by.

By the way, this new scheme by the bank to help you live a good life without worries is compulsory. Your fixed deposit money is still your money but with this new scheme you will be entitled to a handsome monthly sum of $1,500 for the rest of your life.

We will like to assure you that your money is still your money and you will receive a monthly statement as proof of ownership. No one is going to say the money is not your money. You don’t to worry about that. But because we have been paying interest to your money, we have the right to devise any scheme that we think is good to you. We are very caring especially with your money.

Good bye. Please do not call us. Our decision is final. Please do not ask why you cannot take back all your money that is kept with the bank. I also dunno how to explain why you cannot have your money back.

Your kind and caring and honest banker

Mr Harm Kar Chan

7 digit pay is good or no good?

‘The high salaries of UK executives are "corrosive" to the economy, the High Pay Commission has argued.
 
The High Pay Commission was set up by pressure group Compass, with backing from the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust, to investigate boardroom pay.’
Vince Cable, Business Secretary, ‘said the vast disparities in pay were not good for society, and he would consider the proposals seriously…It's not right that we have the situation that's been happening over the last decade where we have vast extreme awards paid on completely unrelated to the performance of companies.
 
And that's not good for the consumers, it's not good for people who own the companies, it's not good for the people who work for them, and that's really got to be addressed.’
 
The counter argument by advocates of 7 digit pay like Richard Evans, president of PepsiCo in the UK and Irish Republic, would say, "If we want great people to come and work in the UK, given it's a global talent pool, we've got to be prepared to pay the amount of money that those executives can get elsewhere in the world."
 
Is this a problem? I think it is a matter of perception. If one agrees that collecting more taxes is good, then there should be no problem with paying more to the top talents. How can they not pay the top talents the market rate and risk losing them to the private sectors? Or is it the other way round, how to afford not to collect more taxes if govt officials are to be paid 7 digit pay? Would there be top talents being paid 8 digit pay?
 
Is the British govt justified to be concerned with 7 digit pay? Would they risk losing all their talents to countries like Singapore that are willing to pay 7 digit or even 8 digit pay, inclusive of bonuses and stock options? Or is that the reason why the top talents in UK are descending onto this island where paying 7 or 8 digit pay is normal, natural, to reward top talents for doing real and deserving work unlike what the British Secretary was saying, ‘paid on completely unrelated to the performance of companies?’
 
Maybe the British should send a team to study our system of 7 digit pay where the incumbents are chosen from a pool of top talents, local and foreign, and paid accordingly, every cent worth it as they really performed as top talents. Not a cent is wasted. And it is definitely good for the consumers, good for people who own the companies, and good for the people who work for them. Look at how well Singapore is run and how good it is for the people and good for the people earning 7 digit pay. No one is complaining and everyone is happy, accepting that the big income gap is normal and a good thing to have. Where got problem?
 
And yes, if we don’t pay them well they will be poached by other organizations and Singapore and its citizens will be in deep trouble. We have a meritocratic system and those who are paid 7 digits are deserving of their pay. It is a good system and working very well here. Is it sustainable? Where is the money coming from to pay 7 digit pay? I don’t see any problem as everything is just fine, working just fine.

Unfair Competition – Are the banks guilty?

The SGX has commented that the banks are doing big business in trading equities for their clients and are contributing a significant volume of the daily market trades. The remisiers’ share of market trading volume has gone tumbling down and is becoming irrelevant when new and internet savvy young investors turned to online trading. In absolute value, the share of online trading is still very low and sometimes one wonders whether it is a profitable business to start with. Maybe the hope is in the future.
 
In the case of the banks, their gains in market share is mainly at the expense of the remisiers when high net worth clients were enticed or induced to become treasury clients and enjoying way below market commission rates. While the commission rates for trading in the stock market was freed and remisiers are allowed to offer any rate they are comfortable with, the norm is between 0.3% to 0.5% and with big clients enjoying 0.25%. Some banks have been quoted to go below the 0.2% mark with some offering a ridiculous rate of 0.1% to their high net worth clients to gain and retain their business.
 
Many remisiers or even brokerages are finding the cut throat commission rates offered by banks and financial institutions detrimental to the unsustainability of their business. Anything below 0.25% is no longer a viable business. Those operating less than 0.2% or 0.1% are like scrapping the ‘skin of the teeth’ and very difficult to make a decent living even if the volume is big.
 
The big question is whether banks are guilty of unfair practices by undercutting the remisiers by offering unsustainable commission rates to gain market share. Stock broking is not the banks main business, more a side show and can be treated as a loss leader to keep the clients with the banks for other businesses. This is a luxury that remisiers are unable to provide or to compete with. Stockbroking is the main business of remisiers and when the commission rate is too low, it is no longer a sustainable business. Many are leaving the industry as the monthly commission can be less than $1,000, less than a cleaner. Remisiers are becoming low income earners and still have to cope with stringent regulations and qualifications, examinations and risk taking.
 
Are the banks taking away the businesses of remisiers by unfair trading? Is under pricing by the banks fair or unfair competition? What does the law say or what would the Competition Commission of Singapore be saying?

The law on Unfair Competition says:
‘Any fraudulent, deceptive, or dishonest trade practice that is prohibited by statute, regulation, or the Common Law.’
 
So, if the banks offer their clients openly, honestly, no law to prohibit offering 0.1% of 0.15%, so no unfair competition. A little elaboration says such a law serves 5 purposes, to protect the economic, intellectual, and creative investments made by businesses in distinguishing themselves and their products. This one is not relevant here.
 
Second, to protect and preserve the goodwill that businesses have established with consumers. So if a bank offers crazy commission rates to win a client from a competitor who have built a lot of goodwill and relationship, will this be an unfair practice?
 
Third, the law seeks to deter businesses from appropriating the goodwill of their competitors. The argument is the same as the second point.
The fourth and fifth points are not relevant to what the banks are doing to snatch clients from remisiers so I will leave them out.
 
Unfair Competition laws abide to a few principles, the freedom to pursue a livelihood, operate a business, in a free enterprise system and accepting that there will be competition. But the law also prohibits a business from unfairly profiting at a competitor's expense, from exerting undue influence and other unethical means.
 
There is a Clayton Act that regulates the use of predatory pricing, ie the use of below-market prices to inflict pecuniary injury on competitors. I think this Clayton Act is perhaps the most relevant to the unfair practices adopted by the banks, by virtue of their muscles and wide range of businesses to take advantage of the remisiers to offer under the belt commission rates. Does this make sense? Is this fair or unfair
 
Do the banks violate any unfair competition laws? I am not even going to discuss about ethical practices as ethics have long been thrown out of the window by the big banks. Look at all the billion dollar penalties against banks found guilty of money laundering and fraudulent practices? Banks are in the gambling businesses when they started to promote toxic notes, derivatives and trading against their clients. What is a little unfair practices to snatch high net worth clients from little and helpless remisiers?
 
Nothing unethical, nothing illegal, what unfair competition? If there are, the Competition Commission of Singapore would have gone after them already. They must have found nothing wrong with the practices of the banks just like the clever rogue retailers in Sim Lim, People’s Park and Lucky Plaza. They are so clever, they know the law and how to work outside the law.
 
When rogues are in charge of banks, when banks are making their big money from speculations, money laundering, selling derivatives and toxic notes, what else can be wrong? Unfair Competition is child’s play.