Why so much deference to the PAP?

I quote this comment from Low Thia Khiang from the Statestimes Review, ‘“I have seen how the PAP works. And of course the rejection is because we don’t allow political parties to use common areas. You use the PA – the People’s Association, you use grassroots advisers – come on, let’s be honest about that.

…We understand the political reality. We understand that the struggle for functional democracy by a loyal opposition must be fought from within the existing system, under the law legislated by Parliament, even though we disagree with them.”

says Workers’ Party Low Thia Kiang, who lamented about the state of Singapore politics in Parliament today (Jan 29).’

I am not sure if this was the exact words of Low Thia Khiang quoted verbatim. I find the phrase ‘loyal opposition’ so creepy. What is there to be loyal or not loyal to be in the opposition? Opposition parties should only be loyal to Singaporeans, and that includes the PAP.  There is no need to be loyal to a ruling party. What does Low Thia Khiang meant by calling himself ‘loyal opposition’? What if he is not a ‘loyal opposition’? Should the opposition parties by ‘loyal opposition’ ie loyal to the ruling party or loyal to the state?

Is this phrase superfluous, unnecessary, a sign of weakness, meek? An opposition is an opposition and should disagree when it disagrees with the ruling party. The disagreement should be based on the national good, national interest and the people’s interest. It could be just a different way of looking at things and wanting to do things differently, no one knows which is the right way or wrong way except to look at it from the interest of the people as first principle.

So, when oppose just oppose lah. There is no necessity to claim to be ‘loyal opposition’.  What do you think? Tiok boh? No need to be ‘khek kee’ mah, as long as one is not saying or doing anything wrong to the country and citizens.

SGX: What is the elephant?

I will borrow a favorite question from a blogger here, ‘Why did the chicken cross the road?’ To find out what is an elephant. I have several questions that I would like to ask, not expecting an answer from the SGX, so better address them to MAS and to Heng Swee Kiat better still. Hopefully then people will see the light.

How much does it cost a fund to set up an operation here to trade using super computers? Initial cost of $50m to $100m and an annual overhead of $30m? How much would be the returns for such an operation to be profitable and sustainable? I reckon a return of $50m per annum would be the bottom line. Could such an operation deriving profits from skimming arbitrages and front running on inefficiencies in the market make this kind of money and be worth the high set up and operating cost? Why would computer traders invest so much capital and overheads to make a few dollars? Cannot be right? How many of such computer traders are here with their super computers plugged into the SGX system to feed on live data to trade against the rest of the innocent investors?

Assuming there are 10 such computer operators, could be 20 or more, with each expecting a return of $50m annually to justify the cost of investment, it would mean they would have to scoop up $500m from the market. This cannot be achieved by just arbitraging or front running. What other advantages did the computer traders have over the other traders to be able to rake in millions in guaranteed profits and not reveal to the public? What about information like keying into the system to tell the super computers that someone is shorting? Would the supercomputers be computing on how to take advantage of such information to make profits?

The computers are having price sensitive information, like who buys what or sells what at what price and at what volumes that ordinary investors did not have. Isn’t this insider trading? Isn’t this front running? Aren’t these a violation of SGX’s principle of providing a level playing field for fair trading? Are these acttivities criminal?

Now what would I like to ask Heng Swee Kiat and the MAS?

1.     How many super computers are plugged into the SGX trading system?

2.     What are they doing, what price sensitive information the computer traders would have that other investors did not have?

3.     Are computer traders, with their access to the SGX system and data and trading to profit from such information a violation of SGX trading rules and regulations and a crime?

4.     What are the records of the profits of the computer traders

5.     Would MAS/Heng Swee Kiat ask SGX to explain to the public/investors how the super computers work, the live data they are mining from the SGX system and how are these used to profit from the system? If the computers are not plugged into the SGX system, if the computers are operating independently within the premises of computer traders, they have all the rights to confidentiality of their computers. But the computers are now plugged into the SGX to take advantage of the system, their operations cannot be confidential anymore. There is a need for more transparency to see if there are cheating the system and the investors. The public/investors have all the rights to know what they are up against. It is only fair.

I hope these questions can be brought to the Remisiers Society and to the attention of MAS and Heng Swee Kiat. Make these questions public, get the media to raise it for public awareness and to educate the public on what is going on and whether there is any violation of the SGX’s trading rules and regulation, whether it is criminal to begin with.

Get the elephant out of the system if you want a fair system, a level playing field.

Benjamin Lim: A life gone through apathy and bo chap

I reproduced a few paras from a post, ‘Where is compassion’ in TRE by a Zarina Jaffar, a teacher on Benjamin’s tragic and unwarranted death.

‘To Benjamin’s parents, no words are enough to release you from your pain. Your boy is a good son. Society, rules and order are cruel towards him. May Benjamin soul rest in peace.

To the Policemen, Principal, Vice Principal, Counsellor, what you fail to do when Benjamin is alive, put it right in his death. His parents need closure. There is no need to give excuses and get defensive. A wrong can never be right if it is wrong. Give the much-needed closure that Benjamin’s parents now and the answer they are seeking. That is the most honourable things you guys can do now, but the burden of guilt will always be yours to deal with.

To the Ministry of Education, please take a personal interest in this case and assist Benjamin parents to come to terms with their loss.

To the society, let’s show our love and support to Benjamin parents in their hours of needs especially with the upcoming Chinese New year. I similarly lost a loved one eight years ago. But the pain of what Benjamin parents is going trough, none of us will ever understand.’

To those people who directly or indirectly contributed to Benjamin’s death, may this episode haunt their conscience for the rest of their lives.  He was only 14! And the insensitive Today paper has an article with this title, MPs, expert laud police review of interview process involving minors’.  Why review now when it should not have happened?  A child must be protected and the law is there to protect a child. And it was quoted that the police are now considering whether adults are appropriate to be present during interviews of minors and whether the proceeding should be video recorded. Unbelieveable! Still living in the medieval age.

And ‘According to an ex police officer who did not wish to be named, the police currently do not allow other parties to be present during interviews because it might hamper investigations. The police knew something is drastically wrong with the procedures. Would they also investigate what actually happened that led to the boy’s death? A healthy normal boy went to school, after being brought to the police station by 5 policemen, returned home and jumped out of the window. Dead. Gone forever. The family lost a son out of the blue.

Shanmugam, what have you got to say? This happened in your watch.

Conquest in the name of ‘Freedom of Navigation’

The USA was the last country to sign the N Resolution on Human Rights and has been going around boasting about protecting human rights. The reason for its reluctance to endorse the UN Resolution on Human Rights was the guilt to being the biggest and most atrocious violators of human rights in human history, the robbing of native North American land, the genocide of the Red Indians and the enslavement of millions of black Africans for more than a century.

The USA still refusing to commit to a stand that it would not use nuclear weapons on any country and has the biggest nuclear arsenal in the world. And it is condemning and pressuring countries trying to possess nuclear weapons.

The USA still refuses to rectify the UN Convention on the Laws of the Sea, UNCLOS. And it is going everywhere, especially in the South China Sea demanding other countries to abide by the UNCLOS which it refuses to follow. This is the American hypocrisy.

Now, in the name of ‘Freedom of Navigation’ and pivot to Asia, it has embarked on the conquest of Asia starting with the South China Sea. It wants to control the South China Sea as part of the American hegemony, part of the American Empire. The daft Asian countries still sleeping and did not know the intention of the Americans. They want to conquer and control the South China Sea in the pretext of fronting up against China.

The Americans are bringing their military hardware and soldiers into the region, sailing their warships and flying their war planes in the South China Sea. If the Asean countries still refuse to remove their blinkers, they would be part of the Empire when interference of their domestic politics is fair game and regime change is a right of the Americans and the Empire.

The Americans are back to re colonise South East Asia. Wake up before it is too late.

SGX promises more dialogue with remisiers

This was the title of an article by a Wong Wei Han in ST on 30 Jan 16.  After reading the content of the article I was wondering whether I should cry or laugh at the silliness of the dialogue. Just the title itself makes me sick. The once in 50 years dialogue would lead to more dialogues. Is more dialogue the solution to the remisiers’ problem? Yes it is the remisiers’ problem. The moribund stock market is the remisiers’ problem. It is definitely not the MAS or SGX’s problem for one good reason. They did not see any problem with the stock market. The stock market is doing very well.

Can you imagine what happened at the dialogue? There were ducks and chickens quacking and cackling but there was no meeting of minds. The frustrated remisiers were there not just for a dialogue per se. They were there not just to complain or vent their frustrations. They were there telling the MAS and SGX that something must be done quickly to save the dying market and industry.

But what happened? The MAS and SGX must be thinking these remisiers must be desperate. There is nothing wrong with the market and nothing needs to be done. And if there is any problem it is the remisiers’ problem, no business, low income and cannot make a living. What has that got to do with the MAS and SGX? Ok, MAS and SGX will be compassionate enough to lend a listening ear. They will have more dialogues if that is what the remisiers want. Ok, happy now?

And the article did narrow done to one big problem that was causing the remisiers the pain and the loss of income, the highly unpopular Minimum Trading Price (MTP). Wow, they finally discovered that this was the problem. ‘The MTP requirement is forcing many companies to consolidate their shares, which has wiped out hundreds of millions in shareholder value and further pressured the already bearish market.’ I am not going to ask who allowed the prices of main board stocks to be split into super penny worthless shares. The good news, this is the problem and if this problem is solved the market will recover and all the remisiers will be happy again as their business will be back. I am very sure this is not the elephant that I was talking about. Anyone sees the elephant yet?

And not all remisiers are so daft. ‘Other remisiers agreed that while the discussion was not in depth and no concrete solutions emerged, the dialogue itself was a welcome gesture.’ So, what are they expecting the MAS and SGX to do when they cannot see anything wrong with the market? Or what would the remisiers want the MAS and SGX to do? What is the elephant?

‘In a statement to The Straits Times, SGX’s rep said: “We are aware there are many long held misconceptions about our market, and we wanted to assure the remisiers that their views and suggestions are heard, and have been, or are being addressed.”’ I see, it is all a matter of misconceptions, nothing serious. Just explain the misconceptions away and all will be fine. Have more dialogues.

If you see a doctor and the doctor did not see anything wrong with you or think that you are not sick, only a misconception, there is no need for any remedies what?  This is what comes out of the dialogue. The ducks said no problem. The chicken said got, then what is the problem? MTP?

More than 100 remisiers and several top MAS and SGX officials spent 3 hours in a dialogue and what came out of it? Has anything been achieved, anything concrete waiting to be done?  One positive result is that there will be more dialogues to explain away any misconceptions…’He (Mr Loh) promised that he will pay attention to our (remisiers) problems and to have more frequent dialogues with us. It’s premature to say whether our (remisiers) issues will be resolved. There is nothing wrong with the market. It is the remisiers and the remisiers’ problems ok?

Luckily no one says ‘No one owes you a living.’