My new profile in China Daily

My new profile in China Daily as a featured contributor

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/opinion/commentator.html

Money laundering the most lucrative business

The big American and European banks are making really big money in money laundering and fraudulent banking practices or selling questionable derivatives and products.  Money laundering seems to be the most profitable business for many banks. And they have been fined handsomely by the US Federal Courts to the tune of billions. The total came to US$150b by some 10 big banks, including BoA, Citi, JP Morgan, Wells Fargo, BNP, Deutsche, Credit Suisse, UBS, Barclay and HSBC to name a few.

These banks are willing to pay the fines happily, for good reasons, as none of their CEOs were found guilty or made accountable for the offences. The banks continue to run as per normal, and so were the employments of the CEOs, all sitting tight and happily as if nothing had happened. With such latitude, would they be back to their monkey businesses again? There don’t seem to be any accountability or responsibility. It is business as usual and the banks are going to continue to make more monies laundering more money and selling fraudulent derivative products.

Actually the biggest winner of all the bank fraud is none other than the US Govt. They pocketed US$150 billion practically doing nothing, and doing something very legal. How many businesses can make this kind of profit with nearly zero cost? Is there a conspiracy between the Federal Court/US Govt and the big banks, with the banks allowed to do what is profitable but illegal but willing to pay the fines and the courts to enrich the US Govt’s coffer, like I scratch your back you scratch mine?

Who are the big gainers and who are the big losers in this game of money laundering? What a great game to play!

When the axe falls in the banking industry

Stanchart, Deutche, HSBC and who else will be next to start downsizing in the banking industry facing hard times when the fictitious fraudulent products and practices are driving the banks to their knees? How many bankers and supporting staff in the industry will face the axe?

There is this belief that Singapore or Singaporeans will be well protected when there is an economic crisis and when businesses start to retrench and downsize.  The big foreign workforce in the city state would be the buffer that would be the first to be trimmed and thereby protecting Singaporeans from losing their jobs. The losing of jobs by Singaporeans is a nightmarish experience when everyone is heavily in debt, big housing mortgages up to their necks. Losing their jobs mean losing their income and ability to service the mortgages and thus their expensive homes.

The retrenchment exercise by the few banks affected should give an idea on how well the Singaporeans will be protected from such trimming exercises. The fact that there is no data to show how many Singaporeans are affected versus the foreigners in these banks is telling. When they can’t tell, refuses to tell, afraid to tell, it says something is not right or not pleasant for the Singaporeans. Why are the banks not willing to be transparent in their retrenchment policies? Are they retrenching the Singaporeans or are they retrenching the foreigners? If they are retrenching the Singaporeans more than the foreigners, would the govt have a say or would the govt want to have a say in this?

What would happen if the organizations retrenching staff are local companies or govt linked companies that employed a lot of foreigners? Would they be thinking of saving the jobs of Singaporeans or would they, like the many monkeys be saying, it will be based on meritocracy regardless of nationalities? So if the foreigners are more ‘meritocratic’, not sure what that word means, then it is ok to dismiss the Singaporeans first?

So far there is an uncomfortable silence in the air? The govt, MOM and the NTUC have not said anything about how the retrenchment of employees should be conducted, that the jobs of Singaporeans should be protected first. Would this be the case or would they come out in defence of meritocracy even in GLCs regardless of nationalities?

What do you think?  Is there a govt policy on this grave issue?

I pray that not many Singaporeans would be affected by such retrenchment as it would mean hardship for the families. Without an income in this most expensive city state in the world, my god, losing a job is not a simple matter when finding one can take several months or years unlike the lucky and ‘talented’ foreigners who could simply take a vacation here and ended up with a job in no time. For Singaporeans, getting a job, or even getting an interview is so difficult.

I hope everyone can join me to pray that Singaporeans would not lose their jobs first when the axe falls.

My article in China Daily

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/opinion/2015-11/12/content_22436656.htm

Above is the link to my latest article in China Daily.

China’s strategic interest to be the Number One super power

It would be hypocritical to take the position that China does not have the ambition or aspiration to be the Number One super power in the world.  But there is a big difference being the Number One super power and world dominance or hegemony like behaving like an Empire. The Number One super power China is pursuing is a status by virtue of its wealth and influence rather than military domination and oppression. China will eclipse the USA as the Number One super power but on its own terms. China will want to win this war with the Americans cheaply, without having to go to war with the Americans. And this goal of a peaceful transition of power is a long one. China is patient, is in no hurry, and time is on China’s side.

China’s strategic plan to take over world leadership from the Americans is based on a two prong strategy in the economic and military fronts. Militarily, China does not need to over take the Americans in military hardware. There is no need for China to have seven fleets of naval armada to police the seven seas. This is obsolete in the 21^st Century and in theChinese strategy. Only an anachronistic Empire still thinks of ruling the seven seas.

With a policy of non intervention in the domestic affairs of foreign countries, without the need to conduct regime change, and without the ambition of occupying foreign land and setting up foreign military bases, all archaic concepts of an imperial empire, China does not have to spend extravagantly on its armed forces. China only needs to maintain a sufficient force to keep the Americans from their wildness, to stop them from thinking that it is possible to fight a war with China and win.  A strong enough deterrent force to check the Americans from becoming reckless and trigger happy would be more than enough to maintain peace between the two super powers. China could thus spend modestly on defence while allowing the Americans to continue to indulge in their extravagant ways in military spending. The Americans will spend itself to poverty if unchecked.

With the military front covered and maintained at status quo, China will move rapidly in the economic front to invest all over the world and gain influence and leadership in economic development and commerce, in infrastructure development, in financial assistance, anything but the use of military force. This is an area that the Americans would not be able to compete with China’s cheap labour and cheap cost of production and cheap finance with no political strings attached. China has been making big strides in South America, Europe, Africa and Central Asia. Its next big target will be South and Southeast Asia. When these two regions accept Chinese investments and infrastructure development, China’s economic conquest of the world will be more or less complete. By then the Americans would be left alone as a solitary military power but unable to do anything with its military might. It will be a new prosperous world under Chinese leadership in economic development, in peace.

Of course in the process the Americans would try their best to incite and provoke wars, regional wars, to upset and derail the Chinese plan for world leadership. How many countries would be sucked into the American military pipe dream of empire building, to start wars and to fight wars, when they have all to gain in peace and to grow and prosper and elevate the quality of life for their people? Who would want wars when they can have peace and prosperity?

China has already seized the initiative in economic cooperation and development with the rest of the world without asserting any military or political pressure on countries that it is investing and helping to rebuild. The economic benefits to these countries are tangible and immediate. Compare what China is doing in Central Asia, Africa, South America and what the Americans are doing in the Middle East, in agitating and provoking tensions in East Asia and the South China Sea.  China is moving in with money and expertise for economic and infrastructure development. The Americans are moving in with all their military hardware and weapons of war, to set up military bases and to start wars.

The strategies of both the Chinese and the Americans for world supremacy are in stark contrast and not difficult to see except for those that chose not to see. Who shall eventually triumph and win this war for influence over the world? The Americans would be left with crazy allies that are trigger happy and think war is fun and glorious. China would be gaining fans in countries that it invested and brought economic growth and prosperity to their people in peace.

The battle has begun in a long protracted war in all corners of the world, without the use of guns and bullets. It may take several decades for the victor to stand on the rostrum in a war without bloodshed and with winners everywhere. Should the Americans win this war, it would be a brutal and devastating world war and nothing much will be left standing and could also mark the end of civilization.

Some western analysts are speculating that China would want to push the Americans out of the western Pacific by force. This is too shallow a view to come from supposedly serious thinking people. The cost of a military conflict with the Americans is unimaginable. China would avoid an all out war with the Americans at all cost unless forced into it. There is nothing to be gained by the Chinese except to bear huge losses of lives and the destruction of their country and with no certainty of winning. China would seek to win this war peacefully, by economic means.

At some point in time the rest of the world would have to choose between peaceful economic development and progress led by China or continuous tension, armed conflicts and destruction led by the Americans.